This thesis seeks to explain why the European Union ratcheted up restrictive 
measures on Myanmar from 1991 until 2010, despite divergent interests of EU 
member states and the apparent inability of sanctions to quickly achieve the 
primary objectives of EU policy. This empirical puzzle applies the ‘sanctions 
paradox’ to the issue of joint action in the EU. It also connects the assessment of 
policy effectiveness to EU foreign policy-making. The investigation unravels this 
conundrum through competitive theory testing. 
The study discovers that EU foreign policy was essentially decided by the largest 
member states. Since 1996, the UK has fostered a consensus among EU policymakers on a principled common policy, which would induce political reform in 
Myanmar mainly via the implementation of punitive measures. Hence, noncompliance by the target with EU demands offers a credible, but insufficient 
explanation of why the EU tightened its sanctions regime. US pressure on EU 
policy was marginal.
The dissertation argues that a ‘normative’ interpretation of liberal 
intergovernmentalism best solves this puzzle. The EU met domestic pressures 
for action, although the measures adopted were clearly too inadequate to be 
effective. Feedback on policy effectiveness did not play a significant role in EU 
decision-making. 
EU policy was driven by a consensus to treat Myanmar as a ‘pariah’ state. 
Ideological motivations have largely outweighed material interests. Normative 
arguments were necessary to put proposals on the common agenda; yet, 
decisions ultimately involved ‘cooperative bargaining’ among the largest states. 
Consensus building was therefore a dynamic process. The policy entrepreneur 
defined its interests domestically; member states with lower preference intensity 
generally refrained from opposing its leadership. 
This thesis thus contributes to the liberal intergovernmental scholarship by 
proposing a more comprehensive explanation for the drivers and constraints that 
influence the making of European sanctions.

European Political Cooperation in the 1980s :: a common foreign policy for Western Europe?

Making EU foreign policy towards a 'Pariah' state : consensus on sanctions in EU foreign policy towards Myanmar

The study of European Union (EU) foreign policy has hitherto been dominated by the question of effectiveness, i.e. does it work? This takes the external impact of the EU’s foreign policy as its analytical starting point. In addition to asking whether EU foreign policy works, we should also inquire into its functions. The article identifies three functions served by EU foreign policy: (1) the legitimization of inactivity at the national level; (2) as a site for the struggle over political power between different actors in the EU; (3) as a means for exploring ontological issues relating to the EU’s underlying purpose and its finalite politique. A common feature of each of these functions is their internal orientation. From this perspective, the study of EU foreign policy need not be limited to assessing the impact of the EU on the rest of the world. It can also tell us a great deal about the political dynamics and the ongoing search for meaning within the EU.

background

Functionality in EU Foreign Policy: Towards a New Research Agenda?

The EU's emergence as an international security provider, under the first Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operations in the Balkans in 2003, is a critical development in European integration. In this book, which relies on extensive interviews with CSDP officials, Michael E. Smith investigates how the challenge of launching new CSDP operations causes the EU to adapt itself in order to improve its performance in this realm, through the mechanism of experiential institutional learning. However, although this learning has helped to expand the overall range and complexity of the CSDP, the effectiveness of this policy tool still varies widely depending on the nature of individual operations. The analysis also calls in to question whether the CSDP, and the EU's broader structures under the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon, are fit for purpose in light of the EU's growing strategic ambitions and the various security challenges facing Europe in recent years.

Europe's Common Security and Defence Policy: Capacity-Building, Experiential Learning, and Institutional Change

ion, which is why we do not consider this finding to be fatal to our research programme. Yet it does impel a significant degree of sensitivity to the different kinds of EU economic interests to be able to gain a truthful and balanced insight into their role in EFP. In addition, it raises questions over characterisations of the EU as an ‘imperial’ type of actor (e.g. Amin, 2003). Conversely, it could be argued that Nicolaïdis and Nicolaïdis’ discussion of the EMP as “an idea that, from the bottom-up, [contributes to] creating we-ness” (2004, p. 23), though cautiously formulated, distracts from the very strong role played by economic interests and the more ‘defensive’ elements in the EU’s approach. For scholars who have looked at the EU’s normative power or its ‘distinctive’ approach to IR, the EMP was an important example. As some have argued: “The EU is making an explicit effort to project its own identity of a democratic polity into its relations with third countries” (Börzel & Risse, 2007, p. 19; see also Scheipers & Sicurelli, 2007; Börzel & Risse, 2005). Notably, the third basket has been put forward by scholars focused on the normative side of EFP in support of their views. “There is great appreciation for the inclusion of the cultural dialogue in the Barcelona Declaration”, writes Attinà (2003, p. 193), “and great expectations are placed in the initiatives and exchanges promoted in the framework of the third chapter.” Adler and Crawford concur, arguing that cultural dialogue has the potential to contribute to shaping shared identities which may “ease negotiations and compromises among conflicting interests, provide a basis for shared interests, and thus create a more solid basis for political stability” (2006, p. 18). Our findings clearly challenge some of these statements, and we differ with normative approaches on whether ideational variables provide a satisfactory explanation

European Political Cooperation in the 1980s :: a common foreign policy for Western Europe?

Citations

Making EU foreign policy towards a 'Pariah' state : consensus on sanctions in EU foreign policy towards Myanmar

Functionality in EU Foreign Policy: Towards a New Research Agenda?

Europe's Common Security and Defence Policy: Capacity-Building, Experiential Learning, and Institutional Change

Material and ideational drivers in EU policy towards the MENA, 1995-2010

Transgovernmental Networks and Regional Integration in Europe and South America

Related Papers (5)

Europe's Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Cooperation

European Political Cooperation

European Foreign Policy

The European Union as a global actor

Foreign policy actions of the European Community : the politics of scale