European countries are involved in various informal groups and alliances, such as the “Quint”, which consists of France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Based on new research, Governor Maria Julia Amadio It highlights that these groups play a key role in steering the EU’s foreign policy.
As the international environment becomes increasingly difficult, calls for EU integration and action are growing. While Israel and Hamas show no signs of reaching a ceasefire agreement, uncertainty over the outcome of this year’s US presidential election continues to cast a shadow over Washington’s continued support for Ukraine.
Divides among EU member states over the EU’s priorities persist. To make matters worse, the leaders of France and Germany, the two main players in EU foreign policy, have been significantly weakened by recent elections. And as if the external challenges that already exist were not enough, the EU will face the daunting task of internally reforming itself in the coming years to prepare for future enlargement.
Informal grouping of EU foreign policy
In my recent research, I argue that it is important to explore informal patterns of cooperation among member states in EU foreign policy in light of these challenges. Informal groups are soft alliances of member state representatives that steer EU foreign policy within and outside the EU institutional framework, but are loosely connected to the EU. There are many examples of such groups, but perhaps the best known are those operating in the Quint format in the Western Balkans, the Normandy format in Ukraine, and the E3/EU+3 format in Iran.
These groups are not new to the EU. They have existed at least since the establishment of the European Political Cooperation (EPC) in the 1970s. However, after decades of increasing integration and institutional development in EU foreign policy, their persistence now raises questions about the success of the European integration process and the functioning of EU foreign policy.
Continuous function
To examine the characteristics and evolution of these groups, I conducted a social network analysis of EU foreign policy covering approximately 50 years of European integration. I examined the frequency and types of informal groups over three periods: from the establishment of European political cooperation in the 1970s to the Maastricht Treaty (1993), from the Maastricht Treaty to the Lisbon Treaty (2009), and from the Lisbon Treaty to 2022.
The European Political Community, the Maastricht Treaty, and the Lisbon Treaty are widely regarded as institutional milestones in the progressive integration of EU foreign policy. They should therefore have reduced the occurrence of informal groups in the foreign policy domain. However, I believe that these groups have been a persistent and recurring feature of the process of European foreign policy integration.
My research suggests that European integration and informal groups are not compatible. In fact, the opposite is true, as the frequency of informal groups remained stable throughout the three stages of European integration considered. At the same time, informal groups were generally relatively small, like-minded, and led by individual member states.
Informal groups appear to have provided the necessary cooperation for the coherent functioning of EU foreign policy by accommodating the interests of member states, especially those that could potentially impede EU cooperation. Significant examples include EU foreign policy in the post-Lisbon era towards Kosovo, Libya and Syria, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Informal grouping of EU foreign policy on Kosovo, Libya and Syria (2009-22)
Source: Edited by the author.
The informal groupings generally included Member States with strategic interests in these cases. For example, in the case of Kosovo, four of the five Member States that did not recognize Kosovo’s independence (Spain, Greece, Slovakia and Cyprus) formed one of the identified groups. At the same time, the cooperation between Member States through informal groups was evenly distributed in the three cases, despite the highly fragmented nature of the Member States.
Theoretical and practical implications
When assessing the success of the European integration process, scholars and experts have focused primarily on whether uniform cooperation between member states was formalized rather than whether and how it actually occurred. Under the implicit understanding that this reflects the absence of integration, they have generally overlooked the emergence of informal groups.
However, these groups seem to be a necessity for the survival of the EU system rather than a pathology of its functioning. Indeed, my research suggests that informal groups have been integrated as an important measure for achieving and maintaining a high level of cooperation between countries in EU foreign policy, despite the divergent interests of the member states.
This has important implications. At a theoretical level, we may need to refine our understanding of European integration as a formalization of the homogeneous integration of member states. At a practical level, we need to rethink the composition of EU institutions. If informal groups are not channelized through institutional mechanisms, this could lead to uncoordinated patterns of cooperation and ineffective EU foreign policy. It could also undermine the already limited accountability of EU foreign policy decisions.
In a global system that is suffering from serious security problems and facing widespread opposition from populist politicians and voters, it is crucial that the EU find the right balance. Achieving such a balance requires a nuanced understanding of the role played by informal groups, an understanding that goes beyond a dichotomous assessment of the importance of informal groups to the functioning of EU foreign policy.
For further details, please see the authors’ attached paper. European Journal of Public Policy
Note: This article presents the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the position of EUROPP (European Politics and Policy) or the London School of Economics. Featured image source: European Union
