The European Union as a Global Conflict Manager: From Pragmatic Ad-hocism to Policy Coherence?

Lead Research Organisation: University of Nottingham
Department Name: Sch of Politics & International Relation

Abstract

Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.
 
Description The project generated two principal sets of findings and one set of policy recommendations. These have been presented in greater detail in the grant holders' 2010 article in International Affairs (see below), and are reproduced here in a sharply abbreviated form:

1. The limitations of EU conflict resolution bodies: no shared understanding of what conflict management means and consequently an absence of an agreed strategy of conflict management across EU institutions; in a Union of 27 states, whose institutional set-up at present confines most foreign affairs decisions to unanimity in the Council, it is very difficult to reach common positions in cases where national interests and domestic sensitivities are involved; lack of an integrated EU foreign policy structure and service (prior to the Lisbon Treaty) and few if any officials with specialist training in conflict analysis.

2. The limitations of EU conflict resolution tools: despite a wide range of policy instruments for conflict management, an over-reliance on the principle of conditionality in its conflict management efforts, despite a mixed track record, exacerbated by a lack of institutional capacity to learn and transfer lessons across missions and institutions.

3. Policy recommendations: given the identification of two key issues that have prevented the EU, to date, from living up to its aspirations to become a globally significant and impactful conflict manager - the lack of a permanent External Action Service and of a coherent and comprehensive conflict management strategy - we recommend two things:

a. That the new EAS aim to achieve a greater level of policy coherence through joined-up thinking between delegations on the ground and EU headquarters in Brussels, offering consistency and continuity of personnel over time, enhancing the role of the High Representative as the single voice of EU foreign policy, combining more effectively the range of policy tools available for conflict management, developing as yet non-existent capabilities and ensuring policy learning and establishment of best practice across the range of EU conflict management operations.

b. That the Union develop a proper conflict management strategy (going beyond the Commission's 2001 Communication on Conflict Prevention), resting on three pillars: a clear definition of EU interests in respect of a specific conflict and the context in which it occurs; an assessment of EU strengths and weaknesses in conflict management; and a feasible approach as to how these strengths can best be exploited and weaknesses either overcome or implied risks be mitigated. In addition, five substantive principles need to guide the EU's thinking about the process and outcome of its engagement in each individual conflict: primacy of negotiated solutions over imposed settlements; inclusiveness of negotiations; comprehensiveness of agreements; building broad coalitions of support for negotiated settlements; and need for long-term external assistance.
Exploitation Route The applicants have had direct input into UK and foreign policymaking by providing expert advice drawing on findings from this project to:



Wolff:

1. UK Embassy to Moldova, "Moving towards a Settlement of the Transnistrian Conflict", since 2009/ongoing

2. Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Mission to Moldova, "Parameters of a Settlement for the Transnistrian Settlement" (two papers and presentations each in Chisinau and Tiraspol), May and November 2009

3. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Strategy Unit, "Implications of the European Action Service on UK Foreign Policy" (written and oral evidence), September-October 2009

4. Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, "The EU's Eastern Partnership and Its Implications for the UK" (written and oral evidence), February-June 2009

5. EU Special Representative for Moldova, "Settlement of conflicts in Gagauzia and Transnistria", since 2007/ongoing



Whitman:

1. Planning exercise for the incoming-European Commission: 'External action in the new Commission: overcoming the complexity challenge', in: The next Commission: doing more and better Challenge Europe, 19, European Policy Centre, (June 2009).

2. Chair, EU Neighbourhood Forum, European Policy Centre, Brussels, 2007-

3. 'Lessons Learned for Multilateral Approaches to Conflict', Foreign and Commonwealth Office Strategy Project, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, November 2008-January 2009.

4. Strengthening the EU's External Representation: The Role of the European External Action Service Directorate General for External Policies, European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament, EXPO/B/AFET/FWC/2009-01/Lot6/02 February 2010. PE 433.821 EN. Societal impact of this project can be measured in the dissemination activities undertaken by the grant holders. These include commissioned reports by a variety of UK government agencies, EU institutions and non-governmental think tanks (and have led to actual use in non-academic contexts as detailed in the next box):

1. Wolff, S. "An EU Strategy for the South Caucasus?" (Presentation at a seminar on "Prospects for the Caucasus", Centre for International Studies, University of Oxford, 2010.)

2. Wolff, S. "The Outlook for the EU's Eastern Neighbourhood" (Plenary presentation at 995th Wilton Park Conference, 2009.)

3. Wolff, S. "The Regional and International Regulation of Ethnic Conflict: Patterns of Success and Failure" (Plenary presentation at 6th Asia-Europe Roundtable on Conflict Resolution sponsored by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, 2009.)

4. Whitman, R.G. and Wolff, S. "After Georgia: The EU and the Management of Ethnic Conflict in the ENP Area" (A report commissioned by the Brussels-based European Policy Centre, based on expert seminars conducted by the award holders in Brussels during 2008 and 2009.)

5. Wolff, S. and van Houten, P. "Minority Rights in the Western Balkans" (A report commissioned by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Sub-committee on Human Rights of the European Parliament, on the role of the EU in promoting minority rights in the Western Balkans, 2008.)

6. Wolff, S. "Overcoming Political Deadlock in Gagauzia: Options for the EUSR Mediation Team" (Expert support for the Office of the EU Special Representative to Moldova, 2008.)

7. Wolff, S. "The European Union and the Conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh Territory" (A report commissioned by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 2007.)

8. Wolff, S. and Whitman, R.G. "Conflict Resolution as a Policy Goal under ENP in the Southern Neighbourhood" (A report commissioned by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament, on the role of the ENP as a potential tool for conflict resolution in the southern neighbourhood, 2007.)
Sectors Security and Diplomacy
 
Description The grant holders have submitted a summary of their findings from this project and a set of publications resulting from it to the UK FCO's Balance of Competences Review and participated in a number of relevant workshops at the FCO hosted by the Balance of Competences team. Their contribution has been cited 11 times in the July 2013 Report on Foreign Policy(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/227437/2901086_Foreign_Policy_acc.pdf)
First Year Of Impact 2013
Sector Government, Democracy and Justice,Security and Diplomacy
Impact Types Policy & public services