European Foreign Policy
Exam information
- Written, closed book
o Set of short questions
o Circa 3 larger open questions
- Exam covers:
o (guest) lectures, class debates
o Powerpoints & your notes
o Required reading
o Your dossier
o Current affairs
- Your dossier
o Gain more detailed knowledge and apply theoretical knowledge to
real-life cases
o Each module on toledo specifies what information you need to add
in your dossier about your two countries (information on relevant
actors, procedures, instruments, actions, etc) and which analytical
frameworks you should try to apply
o You don’t have to submit it and you cannot bring it to the exam
o Don’t do too much, just like 1,5 page.
o Can be a comparative question about your two cases
- SLIDES CLASS 8 for example questions and more exam
information.
- Referring to literature can strengthen your argument and is very positive,
not mandatory.
- For the long questions you write full sentences, but you can underline
important words or use layout elements such as bulletpoints (keep it
structured)
- Use correct names and terminology, eg:
o Europe gives money to..
o The EC provides financial support to
o Using funds from NDICI, Commission’s DG INTPA provides financial
support to… (this is good)
- Chapter 1 very important, 4&5 as well, the historical overview aswell.
o Not a separate question on CSDP, you just need to know the basics.
CFSP is more important
o Not a separate question on development policy, but know the basic
features of the section on development policy.
o Neighborhood important, other major powers, SFP all important, Tom
Delreux’s guest lecture + accompanying lecture.
o Main arguments of guest lectures, main features they analysed.
- Slides are a good indication for what questions he will ask.
Class 1:
Some preliminary questions:
- Is there such a thing as EUFP? What is it?
o Integration, trade, coordination, consultation?
- Which criteria do we use? How do we evaluate?
o Will influence the evaluation of EFP in terms of success or failure?
hard to define
, o What about the ENP (east and south)?: goal to transform the
neighbourhood in a peaceful and prosperous ring of friends
▪ Maps shows a ring of fire: who’s fault?
▪ Points of critique are the failure of the EU to deal with
neighbouring powers like Russian and Turkey
- What with the term foreign in FP?
Some context
- FP: set of policies aimed at countering external threats, furthering interest
and taking advantage of opportunities. Tools are traditional diplomacy,
intelligence and the use of force 🡪 more modern tools include technology,
science, ….
- What is the EU?
o different meanings of “the EU”
▪ The EU = 27 MS
▪ The EU = various EU institutions/actors
▪ EU =/ Europe
o Different views across MS about the EU , it policies, the willingness
to participate and the knowledge about the EU
o 🡺 all have an impact on the evaluation and perception of the EUFP
Class 2:
European integration itself is the result of FP, but FP was initial not part of
integration
In short:
European integration emerged after WWII through the Marshall Plan and
Schuman Declaration, promoting Western European cooperation while excluding
the East; defence remained with NATO. The EEC focused on economics but
gradually developed a foreign policy role. In the 1970s, EPC introduced
intergovernmental coordination, with limited effectiveness.
The Maastricht Treaty (1993) created the CFSP amid major geopolitical change,
but decision-making stayed slow and consensus-based. Amsterdam (1999) and
Lisbon (2009) strengthened institutions (High Representative, EEAS) and
formalised CSDP.
EU foreign policy continues to face constraints—limited military capacity,
complex governance, and multiple crises. Enlargement and neighbourhood
policies had mixed results, while recent strategies emphasise resilience, strategic
autonomy, and adaptation to global power shifts.
Historical overview
1945-1952: EU Integration: product of structural FP
- Marshall Plan pushed Western European states to cooperate on economic
reconstruction (because of European ownership)
- Eastern Europe excluded due to Soviet pressure → East–West divide
- Schuman Declaration launched integration as a foreign policy tool
, - Goal: end Franco-German rivalry by replacing mistrust with
institutionalised cooperation
1952-1970: Foreign Policy/defence is a taboo in European integration
- All EU/European countries wanted NATO to provide security (context of cold
war / USSR in the East)
o NATO caused a transatlantic imbalance: because of reliance on
military efforts US, US expected active support for US FP objectives
and actions.
o Failure of EDC, creation of WEU with link to NATO defence
remained Atlantic not European & intergovernmental not
supranational
- Rome treaties ’57: No EU competences of defence and FP (economy
focused)
o External trade powers nonetheless increased EEC actorness and
thus FP role
Not foreseen and not supported by all of MS
1970-1993: European Political Cooperation (EPC)
- Cold War and decolonisation context pushed coordination
- EPC launched via Hague Summit (1969) and Davignon Report (1970), later
consolidated by other reports and SEA (1986)
- Purely intergovernmental, consensus-based, separate from EC (but proved
hard to sustain)
- No military role or colonial issues; focus on consultation and coordination
- Mainly served internal integration and identity-building, with limited
external impact
1992: Maastricht & CFSP
- Maastricht Treaty launched the CFSP as a major foreign policy step,
replacing EPC
- Driven by geopolitical shocks: end of Cold War, German reunification, Gulf
War, Yugoslav wars
- CFSP mainly served internal integration and identity goals, not real power
transfer
- Organised as a separate intergovernmental pillar, with unanimity and
limited effectiveness (2nd pillar)
- Created false expectations: CFSP was never truly “common” due to
Member State reluctance
- In the late 1990s, EU foreign policy evolved through broader strategies and
partnerships rather than CFSP itself (more attention to Mediterranean etc)
1998: CSDP / Amsterdam Treaty
- 1998–1999: Launch of CSDP (initially called ESDP) in response to the
Yugoslav wars
- Formalised by the Amsterdam Treaty (1999)
- Creation of the High Representative gave CFSP a permanent face
- EU gained limited crisis-management and peacekeeping capabilities (via
WEU)
- First EU military deployments, but not a true defence policy → raised false
expectations
o Civilian vs military power
, - Post-9/11 crises exposed capability gaps and led to further coordination
and strategy (ESS, 2003)
2004-2009: Enlargement, ENP, Lisbon
- 2004/07 Eastern enlargement seen as a key EU structural foreign policy
success
- Aimed to stabilise Eastern Europe and limit Russian influence (incl.
Romania & Bulgaria)
- Mixed results in democratic consolidation (e.g. Hungary, Poland)
- Enlargement pushed the EU to develop the European Neighbourhood Policy
(ENP), with limited impact
- Lisbon Treaty (2009) reformed EU foreign policy structures
- Abolished pillars but kept CFSP/CSDP intergovernmental
- Created the EEAS and formalised CSDP
- Improved coherence on paper, but not decisively EU global actorness
2010s-present: Crises, geopolitics, strategic shift
- EU faced overlapping crises: financial, migration, Brexit, and
neighbourhood instability
- Global power shifts and weakened multilateral order challenged EU
positioning
- 2016 EU Global Strategy: focus on security, resilience, integrated crisis
response, and strategic autonomy
- 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reinforced security and defence
integration debates
- Renewed pressure for deeper integration, including possible European
Defence Union, amid transatlantic uncertainty (e.g. Trump era)
Areas of tension in the evolution of the EUFP
- External vs internal objectives
o Interrelational, integration, and identity objectives
- European integration vs transatlantic solidarity
o NATO and American security guarantee
o Question often asked: what will America think?
- Civilian vs military power
o Should we be a civilian actor or also a military actor?
o Historically civilian, is changing a bit now
- Intergovernmental vs supranational/community method
o Question of sovereignty
- Normative vs interest-driven power
o Nowadays EU is more and more explicitly interest-driven
o Keukeleire: they were always interest-driven but could hide it behind
values
(2) The nature of EUFP
Neither all encompassing, nor exclusive (1/4)
- EUFP is not all-encompassing nor exclusive because the EU is an
international organisation, not a state
- Based on the principle of conferral: EU acts only where treaties provide a
legal basis
- TEU governs CFSP/CSDP (intergovernmental), TFEU covers external policies
under the community method
Exam information
- Written, closed book
o Set of short questions
o Circa 3 larger open questions
- Exam covers:
o (guest) lectures, class debates
o Powerpoints & your notes
o Required reading
o Your dossier
o Current affairs
- Your dossier
o Gain more detailed knowledge and apply theoretical knowledge to
real-life cases
o Each module on toledo specifies what information you need to add
in your dossier about your two countries (information on relevant
actors, procedures, instruments, actions, etc) and which analytical
frameworks you should try to apply
o You don’t have to submit it and you cannot bring it to the exam
o Don’t do too much, just like 1,5 page.
o Can be a comparative question about your two cases
- SLIDES CLASS 8 for example questions and more exam
information.
- Referring to literature can strengthen your argument and is very positive,
not mandatory.
- For the long questions you write full sentences, but you can underline
important words or use layout elements such as bulletpoints (keep it
structured)
- Use correct names and terminology, eg:
o Europe gives money to..
o The EC provides financial support to
o Using funds from NDICI, Commission’s DG INTPA provides financial
support to… (this is good)
- Chapter 1 very important, 4&5 as well, the historical overview aswell.
o Not a separate question on CSDP, you just need to know the basics.
CFSP is more important
o Not a separate question on development policy, but know the basic
features of the section on development policy.
o Neighborhood important, other major powers, SFP all important, Tom
Delreux’s guest lecture + accompanying lecture.
o Main arguments of guest lectures, main features they analysed.
- Slides are a good indication for what questions he will ask.
Class 1:
Some preliminary questions:
- Is there such a thing as EUFP? What is it?
o Integration, trade, coordination, consultation?
- Which criteria do we use? How do we evaluate?
o Will influence the evaluation of EFP in terms of success or failure?
hard to define
, o What about the ENP (east and south)?: goal to transform the
neighbourhood in a peaceful and prosperous ring of friends
▪ Maps shows a ring of fire: who’s fault?
▪ Points of critique are the failure of the EU to deal with
neighbouring powers like Russian and Turkey
- What with the term foreign in FP?
Some context
- FP: set of policies aimed at countering external threats, furthering interest
and taking advantage of opportunities. Tools are traditional diplomacy,
intelligence and the use of force 🡪 more modern tools include technology,
science, ….
- What is the EU?
o different meanings of “the EU”
▪ The EU = 27 MS
▪ The EU = various EU institutions/actors
▪ EU =/ Europe
o Different views across MS about the EU , it policies, the willingness
to participate and the knowledge about the EU
o 🡺 all have an impact on the evaluation and perception of the EUFP
Class 2:
European integration itself is the result of FP, but FP was initial not part of
integration
In short:
European integration emerged after WWII through the Marshall Plan and
Schuman Declaration, promoting Western European cooperation while excluding
the East; defence remained with NATO. The EEC focused on economics but
gradually developed a foreign policy role. In the 1970s, EPC introduced
intergovernmental coordination, with limited effectiveness.
The Maastricht Treaty (1993) created the CFSP amid major geopolitical change,
but decision-making stayed slow and consensus-based. Amsterdam (1999) and
Lisbon (2009) strengthened institutions (High Representative, EEAS) and
formalised CSDP.
EU foreign policy continues to face constraints—limited military capacity,
complex governance, and multiple crises. Enlargement and neighbourhood
policies had mixed results, while recent strategies emphasise resilience, strategic
autonomy, and adaptation to global power shifts.
Historical overview
1945-1952: EU Integration: product of structural FP
- Marshall Plan pushed Western European states to cooperate on economic
reconstruction (because of European ownership)
- Eastern Europe excluded due to Soviet pressure → East–West divide
- Schuman Declaration launched integration as a foreign policy tool
, - Goal: end Franco-German rivalry by replacing mistrust with
institutionalised cooperation
1952-1970: Foreign Policy/defence is a taboo in European integration
- All EU/European countries wanted NATO to provide security (context of cold
war / USSR in the East)
o NATO caused a transatlantic imbalance: because of reliance on
military efforts US, US expected active support for US FP objectives
and actions.
o Failure of EDC, creation of WEU with link to NATO defence
remained Atlantic not European & intergovernmental not
supranational
- Rome treaties ’57: No EU competences of defence and FP (economy
focused)
o External trade powers nonetheless increased EEC actorness and
thus FP role
Not foreseen and not supported by all of MS
1970-1993: European Political Cooperation (EPC)
- Cold War and decolonisation context pushed coordination
- EPC launched via Hague Summit (1969) and Davignon Report (1970), later
consolidated by other reports and SEA (1986)
- Purely intergovernmental, consensus-based, separate from EC (but proved
hard to sustain)
- No military role or colonial issues; focus on consultation and coordination
- Mainly served internal integration and identity-building, with limited
external impact
1992: Maastricht & CFSP
- Maastricht Treaty launched the CFSP as a major foreign policy step,
replacing EPC
- Driven by geopolitical shocks: end of Cold War, German reunification, Gulf
War, Yugoslav wars
- CFSP mainly served internal integration and identity goals, not real power
transfer
- Organised as a separate intergovernmental pillar, with unanimity and
limited effectiveness (2nd pillar)
- Created false expectations: CFSP was never truly “common” due to
Member State reluctance
- In the late 1990s, EU foreign policy evolved through broader strategies and
partnerships rather than CFSP itself (more attention to Mediterranean etc)
1998: CSDP / Amsterdam Treaty
- 1998–1999: Launch of CSDP (initially called ESDP) in response to the
Yugoslav wars
- Formalised by the Amsterdam Treaty (1999)
- Creation of the High Representative gave CFSP a permanent face
- EU gained limited crisis-management and peacekeeping capabilities (via
WEU)
- First EU military deployments, but not a true defence policy → raised false
expectations
o Civilian vs military power
, - Post-9/11 crises exposed capability gaps and led to further coordination
and strategy (ESS, 2003)
2004-2009: Enlargement, ENP, Lisbon
- 2004/07 Eastern enlargement seen as a key EU structural foreign policy
success
- Aimed to stabilise Eastern Europe and limit Russian influence (incl.
Romania & Bulgaria)
- Mixed results in democratic consolidation (e.g. Hungary, Poland)
- Enlargement pushed the EU to develop the European Neighbourhood Policy
(ENP), with limited impact
- Lisbon Treaty (2009) reformed EU foreign policy structures
- Abolished pillars but kept CFSP/CSDP intergovernmental
- Created the EEAS and formalised CSDP
- Improved coherence on paper, but not decisively EU global actorness
2010s-present: Crises, geopolitics, strategic shift
- EU faced overlapping crises: financial, migration, Brexit, and
neighbourhood instability
- Global power shifts and weakened multilateral order challenged EU
positioning
- 2016 EU Global Strategy: focus on security, resilience, integrated crisis
response, and strategic autonomy
- 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reinforced security and defence
integration debates
- Renewed pressure for deeper integration, including possible European
Defence Union, amid transatlantic uncertainty (e.g. Trump era)
Areas of tension in the evolution of the EUFP
- External vs internal objectives
o Interrelational, integration, and identity objectives
- European integration vs transatlantic solidarity
o NATO and American security guarantee
o Question often asked: what will America think?
- Civilian vs military power
o Should we be a civilian actor or also a military actor?
o Historically civilian, is changing a bit now
- Intergovernmental vs supranational/community method
o Question of sovereignty
- Normative vs interest-driven power
o Nowadays EU is more and more explicitly interest-driven
o Keukeleire: they were always interest-driven but could hide it behind
values
(2) The nature of EUFP
Neither all encompassing, nor exclusive (1/4)
- EUFP is not all-encompassing nor exclusive because the EU is an
international organisation, not a state
- Based on the principle of conferral: EU acts only where treaties provide a
legal basis
- TEU governs CFSP/CSDP (intergovernmental), TFEU covers external policies
under the community method
