Samenvatting

In this dissertation, the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty to Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) in order to address and improve the coherence of the EU's external action are examined. In order to understand the coherence problem that existed in the EU's external action before the Lisbon Treaty had been established, three case studies have been conducted. The case studies focussed on the Bosnia-Herzegovina war (1991), the Iraq crisis(2003) and the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty in order to address the coherence problem of the EU's external action. Both crises were used as case studies in order to identify what caused the coherence problem in the EU's external action and to determine sources that contributed to the incoherence that existed in the EU's external action. The objective of this dissertation is therefore to examine and determine how effective the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty to CFSP have been in improving the coherence of the EU's external action.
The EU's external action has always been the weaker arm of the EU's decision making policy. This became even more apparent during crises such as the Iraq war and the Bosnia-Herzegovina war. The main findings of the case study on the Bosnia-Herzegovina war showed that the situation in the Balkans was the ultimate test for the EU's ability to conduct a common foreign security policy but the war demonstrated the exact opposite and proved a lack of European commitment to construct an effective, common policy. The case study showed that Bosnia became the symbol of European failure as the EU failed to behave as one, coherent actor; taking joint decisions and speaking with one voice. The main findings of the case study showed that Member State divergence was one of the main sources that contributed to the coherence problem that existed in the EU's external action. The Member States failed to take a common position and pursued their own national interests instead of those of the EU as a whole. Furthermore, the case study prove that the EU was not capable of developing a constructive policy towards Bosnia as well as a lack of commitment to have a 'real', coherent security policy and the failure to act through joint decisions as sources contributing to the coherence problem that existed in the EU's external action before the Lisbon Treaty had been established.
The findings of the case study on the Iraq war were, to some extent, similar to those of the case study on the Bosnian war, as Member State divergence was also identified as one of the main sources of incoherence in the EU's external action. It was found that the Iraq war is often referred to as "the great split" as Member States failed to cooperate or take a common position with regards to the crisis. However, the case study also showed that diverging threat perceptions contributed to Member State divergence. Moreover, the results of the case study show that the absence of any strong CFSP statements and the lack of any effective decision-making procedures capable of overcoming dissent, did not benefit the coherence of the EU's external action.
In the case study on the Lisbon Treaty, it became clear that the Treaty had taken into account crises such as Iraq and the Bosnian war and introduced, primarily, institutional changes and changes to the CFSP in order to address and improve the coherence of the EU's external action. One of the most important changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty was the creation of the new post of HR who, together with the Commission, is responsible for the coordination of all EU external action. Furthermore the Treaty led to the creation of the EEAS, a new service created with the intention to improve the coordination of the EU's responses to crises and to act as some sort of intermediary between all main (institutional) actors involved in European Foreign Policy. Furthermore, the European Council was recognised as an official EU institution and was given the power and responsibility to determine the strategic interests and objectives of the EU for all its external actions. Moreover, the case study on the Lisbon Treaty, showed that the different reactions and positions of the EU Member States have a large impact on the performance of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and High Representative (HR) for Foreign Affairs and Security on the 'incoherent' responses of the EU to crises. In general, the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty seem to have had positive effect on the coherence of the EU's external action. The creation of the new post of HR has created more unity in the EU's external action and has great potential to further improve the coherence of the EU's external action as it unifies the EU and Member States by combining their interests into one person. The EEAS has also proved to be effective in improving the coherence of the EU's external action as it has already been successful in certain areas such as the Balkans were it made significant progress in bringing Siberia closer to EU membership. The EEAS has also been successful in redefining policies and assistance to the countries affected by the 'Arab awakening'. Overall the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty thus proved to be effective. However, the HR and EEAS will face the changing environment of the EU in which Member States and EU institutions will compete. They will have to make sure that they maintain their competences. It seems that the only way to keep on improving the coherence of the EU's external action depends on more cooperation at EU level, all Member States working together. Of course, this is easier said than done and only time will tell if the EU is capable of overcoming dissent and if the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty will live up to their full potential and 'eliminate' the coherence problem in the EU's external action for good.