Kurumsal bileşenler ışığında Avrupa Birliği diplomasisinin gelişimi

Year 2022, , 759 - 782, 25.10.2022

Çiğdem Şahin

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.1162541

Abstract

Avrupa Birliği’ne Lizbon Antlaşması’yla getirilen düzenlemeler içinde öne çıkan yeniliklerin bir kısmı dış eylemlere ilişkindir. Birlik Dış ve Güvenlik Politikası Yüksek Temsilciliği ve Avrupa Dış Eylemler Servisi gibi oluşumlar, Avrupa Birliği diplomasisinin orijinallikleri olarak görülmektedir. Ancak bu kurumsal yapılar uzun süreli bir diplomatik gelişim sürecinin sonunda ortaya çıkmışlardır. Çalışmada bu gelişim süreci Avrupa Birliği’nin diplomatik varlığı ve Lizbon Antlaşması’yla doğan diplomatik kişiliği temelinde iki dönemde ele alınmaktadır. AB diplomatik sisteminin temel özelliklerinden biri olarak kurumsal bileşenler, tarihsel gelişimdeki etkileri itibariyle önemi olduğundan, hem en eski hem de iç-dış diplomatik sistem bileşen örnekleri olarak Coreper ve Avrupa Komisyonu/Birlik Delegasyonları incelenmektedir. İlgili literatürün ve AB hukuku kaynakları, resmi kararları ve raporları ışığında hazırlanan çalışmada, YT ve ADES gibi kurumsal yeniliklerin uzun bir tarihsel mücadelenin sonucunda var oldukları, ancak kendilerinden önceki iç ve dış boyutlarda işleyen kurumsal yapıların hazırladığı zeminde, yine sorunlu da olsa doğabildikleri sonucu ortaya konmaktadır.

Keywords

Avrupa Birliği, diplomasi, diplomatik kişi, Coreper, Komisyon/AB delegasyonları

Evolution of European Union diplomacy in the light of institutional components

Abstract

Some of the prominent innovations brought to the European Union by the Lisbon Treaty are related to external actions. Institutions such as The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European External Actions Service are seen as originalities of European Union diplomacy. However, these institutions emerged as a result of a long-term diplomatic development process. In the study, this development process is discussed in two periods on the basis of the diplomatic entity and diplomatic personality born with the Lisbon Treaty. Since institutional components, as one of the main features of the EU diplomatic system, are important in terms of their effects on historical development, Coreper and European Commission/Union Delegations are examined as examples ofboth the oldest and internal-external diplomatic system components. In the study, which was prepared in the light of the relevant literature and EU official decisions and reports, it is concluded that institutional innovations such as the High Representative and the European External Actions Service have emerged as a result of a long historical struggle by the institutional structures operating in the internal and external dimensions.

Keywords

European Union, diplomacy, diplomatic persona, Coreper, Commission/EU delegations

References

• Adler-Nissen, R. (2009). Late sovereign diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, (4), 121-141.
• Aissaoui, A. (2018). The Amarna diplomacy in IR perspective: A system of states in the making. Estudos Internacionais, 6(2), 9-29.
• Austermann, F. (2012). Towards embassies for Europe? EU delegations in the Union’s diplomatic system. Policy Paper 8. The Diplomatic System of the EU Network.
• Balfour, R. & Ojanen, H. (2011). does the European External Action Service represent a model for the challenges of global diplomacy?. IAI Working Papers 11/17. Roma: Istituto Affari Internazionali.
• Bátora, J. (2005). Does the European Union transform the ınstitution of diplomacy?. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(1), 44-66.
• Bátora, J. (2013). The ‘mitrailleuse effect’: The EEAS as an interstitial organization and the dynamics of innovation in diplomacy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(4), 598-613.
• Berridge, G. R. & James, A. (2003). A dictionary of diplomacy. Hampshire&New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bicchi, F. & Bremberg, N. (2016). European diplomatic practices: Contemporary challenges and innovative approaches. European Security, 25(4), 391-406.
• Bicchi, F. and Schade, D. (2022). Whither European diplomacy? Long-term trends and the impact of the Lisbon Treaty. Cooperation and Conflict, 57(1), 3-24.
• Black, J. (2010). A history of diplomacy, London: Reaktion Books.
• Bruter, M. (1999). Diplomacy without a state: The external delegations of the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(2), 183-205.
• Can, H. (2013). Avrupa Birliği hukuku, İstanbul: Sürat Üniversite Yayınları.
• Canali, S. (2019). European Union diplomats: an emerging epistemic community?. CEPOB 8.19. Bruges: College of Europe.
• Comelli, M. & Matarazzo, R. (2011). Rehashed Commission delegations or real embassies? EU delegations post-Lisbon. IAI Working Papers 11. Rome: Istituto Affari Internazionali.
• Commission of the European Communities. (1973a). The Copenhagen Summit Conference. Bulletin of the European Communities, 6/12-1973, 6-12.
• Commission of the European Communities. (1973b). Political cooperation. Bulletin of the European Communities, 6/12-1973, 118-122.
• Commission of the European Communities. (1999, April 21). The development of the external service. Communication from the Commission COM(1999) 180 final. Brussels.
• Constantinou, C. M. & Sharp, P. (2016). Theoretical perspectives in diplomacy. In Constantinou, C. M., Kerr, P. and Sharp, P. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of diplomacy (pp. 13-27). London: SAGE Publications.
• Cornago, N.´ (2008). Diplomacy. In Lester K. (Ed), Encyclopedia of violence, peace, & conflict (pp. 574-580). Vol. 1. Oxford: Elsevier.
• Council Decision. (2009, December 11). Amended Council decision of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council's rules of procedure. Official Journal of the European Union, L 325, 35-61. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02009D0937-20220101&from=EN
• CVCE. (2016). Origin and development of Coreper. Retrieved from https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2007/3/9/debc33b6-de37-4f54-bb9a-0e3508885349/publishable_en.pdf
• Davis Cross, M. K. (2008). A European epistemic community of diplomats. In Sharp, P. & Wiseman, G. (Eds), The diplomatic corps as an institution of international society (pp. 223-245). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Davis Cross, M. K. (2010). Sustainable diplomacy in the European Union”. In Constantinou, Costas M. and Der Derian, James (Eds.), Sustainable diplomacies (pp. 192-212). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Davis Cross, M. K. (2014). The Practice of Diplomacy and EU Security Policy. In Wilga, M. and Karolewski, I. P. (Eds.), New approaches to EU foreign policy (pp. 106-124). London and New York: Routledge.
• Dermendzhiev, D. (2014). The emergence of a network of ‘European embassies’: Increasing cooperation between EU delegations and member state diplomatic missions. EU Diplomacy Papers 10. Bruges: College of Europe.
• Dimier, V. & Mc Geever, M. (2006). Diplomats without a flag: The institutionalization of the delegations of the Commission in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(3), 483-505.
• Drieskens, E. (2012). What’s in a name? Challenges to the creation of EU Delegations. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, (7), 51-64.
• Duke, S. W. (2002). Preparing for European diplomacy?. Journal of Common Market Studies 40(5), 849-870.
• Duke, S. W. (2013). European External Action Service and public diplomacy. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’.
• EEAS. (2021). Human resources report 2020. Retrieved from https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eeas_hr_report_2020_8.pdf
• EEAS. (2022). EU diplomatic representations. Retrieved from https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/about-european-external-action-service_en#8419
• Efe, H. (2010). Soğuk Savaş döneminde Avrupa’da ortak dış politika oluşturma çabaları. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 37-62.
• Euronews. (2009, November 20). Kissinger's call question answered. Euronews. Retrieved from https://www.euronews.com/2009/11/20/kissinger-s-call-question-answered
• European Commission. (2004). Taking Europe to the world 50 years of the European Commission’s external service, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004.
• European Council. (1999, June 3-4). Cologne presidency conclusions. Retrieved from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/kolnen.htm
• Fernández, A. M. (2008). Consular affairs in the EU: Visa policy as a catalyst for integration?. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, (3), 21-35.
• Goebel, R. J. (2013). Supranational? Federal? Intergovernmental? The governmental structure of the European Union after the Treaty of Lisbon. Columbia Journal of European Law, 20(1), 77-142.
• Görpe, S. (2010). EU Communication with candidate countries: The case of Turkey. Public relations consultants’ analyses of EU communications. In Valentici, C. and Nesti, G. (Eds.), Public communication in the European Union history, perspectives and challenges (pp. 363-387). UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Harr, J. E. (1969). The professional diplomat. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Hill, C. & Wallace, W. (1979). Diplomatic Trends in the European Community. International Affairs, 55(1), 47-66.
• Hill, C. (1993), The capability-expectations gap, or conceptualizing Europe’s international role. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(3), 305-328.
• Hill, D. J. (1899). Course in European diplomacy. Washington: The Columbian University.
• Hocking, B. & Smith, M. (2011). An emerging diplomatic system for the EU? Frameworks and issues. Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto, (44), 19-42.
• Hocking, B. & Spence, D. (2005). Towards a European diplomatic system?. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael.
• Hocking, B., Melissen, J., Riordan, S. & Sharp, P. (2012). Futures of diplomacy: Integrative diplomacy in the 21st century. Report 1. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael.
• Hwee, Y. L. & Yeong, L. H. (2013). Who acts for the EU before and after the Lisbon Treaty? The view through the media in Singapore and Thailand. Baltic Journal of European Studies, 3(3), 85-104.
• James, A. (2016). Diplomatic relatons between states. In Constantinou, C. M., Kerr, P. And Sharp, P. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of diplomacy (pp. 257-267). London: SAGE Publications.
• Jørgensen, K. E. (1999). Modern European diplomacy: A research agenda. Journal of International Relations and Development, 2(1), 78-96.
• Jönsson, C. (2018). Diplomatic representation: states and beyond. In V. Stanzel (Ed.), New realities in foreign affairs: diplomacy in the 21st century (pp. 21-26). Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.
• Kahraman, S. (2008). Avrupa dış politikası ve Avrupa Birliği’nin uluslararası aktörlüğü üzerine bir değerlendirme. B. Akçay, S. Kahraman & S. Baykal (Ed.), Avrupa Birliği’nin güncel sorunları ve gelişmeler içinde (s. 397-417). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
• Keukeleire, S. (2003). The European union as a diplomatic actor: internal, traditional, and structural diplomacy. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 14(3), 31-56.
• Laursen, F. (2012). The Lisbon Treaty: overview of institutional choices and beginning implementation. In Finn Laursen (Ed.), The EU’s Lisbon Treaty institutional choices and implementation (pp. 3-17). London and New York: Routledge.
• Lempp, J. (2007). Coreper enlarged: how enlargement affected the functioning of the Committee of Permanent Representatives. European Political Economy Review, (6), 31-52.
• Lewis, J. (1998). The institutional problem-solving capacities of the Council: The Committee of Permanent Representatives and the methods of community. MPIfG Discussion Paper 98/1. Köln: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.
• Lewis, J. (2003). Informal integration and the supranational construction of the Council. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(6), 996-1019.
• Lewis, J. (2017). Coreper: National interests and the logic of appropriateness. In D. Hodson & J. Peterson (Ed.), The institutions of the European Union (pp. 334-356). Fourth Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Maurer, H. & Wright, N. (2021). Still governing in the shadows? Member states and the political and security committee in the Post‐Lisbon EU foreign policy architecture. Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(4), 856-872.
• Merket, H. (2014, May). From Commission to Union delegations: A legal-institutionalist analysis. Conference of European Union in International Affairs IV, Brussels.
• Neumann, I. B. (2012). Euro-centric diplomacy: Challenging but manageable. European Journal of International Relations, 18(2), 299-321.
• Nicolson, H. (1942). Diplomacy. London: Oxford University Press.
• Nicolson, H. (2001). The Evolution of Diplomatic Method- Being the Chichele Lectures Delivered at the University of Oxford in November 1953, 3rd edn., Leicester: University of Leicester.
• Oğurlu, Eb. (2019). Avrupa Dış Eylem Servisi Kapsamında Avrupa Birliği’nin Diplomatik Dönüşümü. Uluslararası Siyaset Bilimi ve Kentsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(2), 361-381.
• Özdal, B. & Genç, M. (2005). Avrupa güvenlik ve savunma politikasının Türkiye-AB ilişkilerine etkileri. İstanbul: Aktüel.
• Publishing Services of the European Communities. (1965). Treaty establishing a single Council and a single Commission of the European Communities and annexed documents. Retrieved from http://aei.pitt.edu/5202/1/5202.pdf
• Rasmussen, S. B. (2014). EU Diplomacy After Lisbon: Institutional Innovation, Diplomatic Practices and International Strategy. Romanian Review of Social Sciences, (7), 38-73.
• Reçber, K. (2011). Diplomasi ve konsolosluk hukuku. Bursa: Dora Yayınları.
• Resmi Gazete. (1987, Haziran 4). Avrupa Toplulukları Komisyonunun Türkiye'de Temsilciliğinin kurulması ve bu temsilciliğin ayrıcalıkları ve dokunulmazlıkları konusunda Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Hükümeti ile Avrupa Toplulukları Komisyonu arasında anlaşma. Sayı 19477, 1-3.
• Satov, E. (1917). A guide to diplomatic practice. Vol. I. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
• Schout, J. A. (1998). The Presidency as Juggler: Managing Conflicting Expectations. Eipascope, (2), 2-10.
• Secreteriat of the Commission. (1970). Report by the Foreign Ministers of the member states on the problems of political unification. Bulletin of the European Communities, 3(11), 9-14.
• Secreteriat of the Commission. (1972). The first summit conference of the enlarged community. Bulletin of the European Communities, 5(10), 9-26.
• Secreteriat of the Commission. (1973). Political cooperation between the nine. Bulletin of the European Communities, 6(9), 12-21.
• Shaw, M. N. (2018). Uluslararası hukuk (İ. Kaya, Çev.). 8. Baskı. Ankara: TÜBA.
• Sivrioğlu, U. T. & Yılmaz, M. E. (2017). İlk çağ uygarlıklarında diplomasi. U. Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(2), 179-227.
• Smith, (2015). The EU as a diplomatic actor in the post- Lisbon era: robust or rootless hybrid?. In Koops, Joachim A. and Macaj, Gjovalin (Ed.), The European Union as a diplomatic actor (pp. 11-30). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Spence, D. (2009). Taking stock: 50 years of European diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, (4), 235-259.
• Spence, D.& Bátora, J. (Ed.) (2015). The European External Action Service European Diplomacy Post-Westphalia, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Spiegel International. (2009, November 20). New EU president and foreign minister - europe chooses nobodies. Retrieved from https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-eu-president-and-foreign-minister-europe-chooses-nobodies-a-662357.html
• Tangör, B. (2012). Dış, güvenlik ve savunma politikaları. B. Akçay & İ. Göçmen (Ed.), Avrupa Birliği tarihçe, teoriler, kurumlar ve politikalar içinde (s. 579-607). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• The Council of the EU. (2010a, August 3). Council decision of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (2010/427/EU). Official Journal of the European Union, L 201, 30-40.
• The Council of the EU. (2010b, January 19). EU diplomatic representation in third countries- First half of 2010, Note 17770/1/09 REV 1, Brussels.
• The Council of the EU. (2020). The decision-making process in the Council. Retrieved from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/decision-making/
• The General Secretariat of the Council. (2016). Comments on the Council’s rules of procedure European Council’s and Council’s rules of procedure. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• The Local. (2009, December 1). Reinfeldt hails first day of EU's Lisbon Treaty. Retrieved from https://www.thelocal.se/20091201/23580
• The Secreteriat of the European Convention. (2002, December 16). Final report of Working Group VII on External Action. CONV 459/02, WG VII 17. Brussels.
• The Telegraph. (2009, November 20). Profile: Baroness Ashton, EU's new foreign minister. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6609910/Profile-Baroness-Ashton-EUs-new-foreign-minister.html
• The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. (2004, December 16). Official Journal of the European Union, C 310, 1-474.
• The Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community. (1958). United Nations Treaty Series, V 298, 169-266.
• The Treaty Establishing the European Community. (1992, August 31). Official Journal of the European Communities, C 224, 6-79.
• The Treaty Establishing the European Community. (1997, November 10). Consolidated version. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340, 173-306.
• The Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community. (1958). United Nations Treaty Series, V 298, 11-165.
• The Treaty of Amsterdam. (1997, November 10). Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340, 1-144.
• The Treaty of Lisbon. (2007, December 17). Official Journal of the European Union, C 306, 1-271.
• The Treaty on European Union. (1992, July 29). Official Journal of the European Communities, C 191, 1-112.
• The Treaty on European Union. (1997, November 10). Consolidated version. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340, 145-172.
• The Treaty on European Union. (2016, June 7). Consolidated version. Official Journal of the European Union, C 202, 13-45.
• The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. (2016, June 7). Consolidated version. Official Journal of the European Union, C 202, 49-199.
• Tuncer, H. (1995). Eski ve yeni diplomasi. Ankara: Ümit Yayıncılık.
• Wouters, J. & Duquet, S. (2011). The EU, EEAS and Union delegations and international diplomatic law: newhorizons?. Working Paper 62. Leuven: Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies.