It has been maintained that the European Union can best be considered a political system. Following this argument, foreign policy making in the EU should also be approached from a systemic perspective. Roughly, three main sources of foreign policy can be identified: the Common Foreign and Security Policy under Pillar II, external relations of the EU under Pillar I, and national foreign policies of the member states. The Northern Dimension policy is an interesting case in point because in various ways it touches upon all three areas.
Thus, officially, the Northern Dimension is an EU external relations policy and is therefore located within the responsibility of the Commission. However, it has been adopted as a response to an initiative of one member state, Finland, and it can safely be argued that essentially national foreign policy interests formed the base for this advance by Finland. Furthermore, it has also been suggested that the Northern Dimension can be considered a type of security policy, at least from the point of view of an extended, post-modernist, security policy agenda.
Not only for this reason is the Northern Dimension innovative and challenging for the EU. It is also meant to work and achieve its goals without any new institutional arrangements or additional money being spent. Indeed, these two aspects have widely been considered the main reasons for the relatively quick adoption of the initiative as an EU policy. At the same time, however, they have been the cause for substantial criticism and allegations that the initiative offers little to the Union beyond its rhetoric.
This paper will explore whether there is any basis to such claims. It will be argued that so far the Northern Dimension has indeed been rather poor in substance, at least when taking as a base for judgment the Action Plan it is guided by. Nevertheless, the initiative has considerable potential by virtue of how it is supposed to work. This is not to say that concrete outcomes won′t have to be achieved as well, but the way they might be reached is what could make the Northern Dimension act as a model for the EU′s external relations.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Rhetoric
Diverging Interests between the Commission and the Member States
The Case against the Northern Dimension
The Substance
A Postmodern Vision for the EU
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This dissertation examines the Northern Dimension (ND) policy of the European Union, investigating the discrepancy between its ambitious rhetoric and its perceived lack of substantial implementation. The primary research goal is to determine whether the policy—initially proposed by Finland as an innovative, postmodern regionalist approach—has been effectively neutralized by the Brussels bureaucracy or whether it still holds transformative potential for EU-Russia relations and the Union's own internal governance structures.
- The role of national foreign policy interests in shaping EU initiatives.
- The clash between modernist centralized governance and postmodern regionalist approaches.
- Challenges in implementing horizontal, cross-pillar policies within the existing EU institutional framework.
- The potential for the Northern Dimension to function as a model for decentralized, multi-level regional cooperation.
- The securitization of external borders versus the promotion of "soft" border zones.
Excerpt from the Book
Diverging Interests between the Commission and the Member States
The ND initiative, in its original formulation, thus truly follows a spirit of a ‘Europe of regionalities’. What was envisaged was an inclusive transboundary regionalism, with cross-border cooperation and on national, regional and local levels and a degree of decentralized decision-making. The intention of a bottom-up-approach to governance was also part of this idea. Heininen maintains, that ‘in North Europe (this) regionalism is seen as a realistic possibility, even as a new resource for development’. It could, moreover, be regarded as a postmodernist way of tackling security and stability problems in the region through blurring the EU’s external borders and thus overcoming previous dividing lines. Browning reminds us that this is in the best tradition of the EU as a civilian power.
It is not difficult to see why it has been problematic for the EU to accept an enhanced role for other regional bodies and an almost equal role for partner countries in the ND as well as an increased profile for municipalities and regions. Quite simply, these elements of the ND policy, which Catellani summarizes under the term ‘multilevel cooperation and implementation’, are seen by the Commission as potentially decreasing the EU’s actorness in the region and negatively affecting the authority of the core vis-à-vis the periphery. As Wessels points out, ‘(r)egionally delimited views of the Union could lead to a fragmentation reducing the unity of the EU in its international performance’. This illustrates very well the Commission’s suspicions. As a consequence, the role of the regional actors has so far not been one of active participation in policy formulation and implementation but rather one of selective information provision at the Commission’s request, if at all.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides a systemic perspective on EU foreign policy and outlines the problematic, yet innovative nature of the Northern Dimension.
The Rhetoric: Reviews the history of the Northern Dimension, emphasizing its origin as a Finnish initiative focused on low-politics and regional stability.
Diverging Interests between the Commission and the Member States: Analyzes the tension between Finland's postmodern regionalist vision and the Commission's modernist preference for centralization.
The Case against the Northern Dimension: Discusses criticisms regarding the policy's vagueness, administrative barriers, and lack of tangible results.
The Substance: Explores the under-utilized potential of the ND, particularly regarding its capacity to integrate Russia through partnership rather than exclusion.
A Postmodern Vision for the EU: Examines the theoretical implications of the ND as a "postmodern" experiment in governance and border management.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings and suggests that while the policy has been constrained, it remains a valuable motor for internal EU reform.
Keywords
Northern Dimension, European Union, Finland, Russia, Regionalism, Foreign Policy, Modernism, Postmodernism, Multi-level Governance, External Relations, Kaliningrad, Integration, Border Management, Policy Implementation, EU Enlargement.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research?
The research analyzes the EU's Northern Dimension policy, evaluating the gap between its stated goals and its actual implementation as a tool of EU external relations.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include the tension between national and supranational interests, the debate between modernist and postmodernist governance, and the challenges of regional cooperation across EU external borders.
What is the main objective of this work?
The study aims to determine if the Northern Dimension is merely "rich in rhetoric" or if it contains substantial unused potential that could transform how the EU interacts with its neighbors.
What research methodology is applied?
The work utilizes a foreign policy analysis framework, incorporating critical theory and institutional analysis to interpret the evolution of the policy from its inception to the Action Plan.
What does the main body address?
It addresses the administrative hurdles, the "Brussels bureaucracy" resistance to decentralization, and the specific case of Kaliningrad as a litmus test for the policy's efficacy.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The most relevant keywords are Northern Dimension, Regionalism, EU-Russia Relations, Multi-level Governance, and Foreign Policy Adaptation.
Why did Finland launch the Northern Dimension initiative?
Finland launched the initiative primarily to heighten its profile as a new member state and to protect its national security and economic interests by fostering stability in the Russian border regions.
Does the author consider the Northern Dimension a failure?
No, the author argues that while the policy has been constrained by traditional modernist views, it holds significant potential to act as a motor for internal EU reform and improved external partnership.
- Quote paper
- Ralf Segeth (Author), 2002, The EU's Northern Dimension - rich in rhetoric, poor in substance?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/8769
