ABSTRACT
The EU’s international actorness: what does the EU do? Similarly to its international presence, respondents appear to describe the EU’s international actorness as influenced by its atypical character as a multinational, non-state actor. While this distinctiveness was viewed as a constitutive trait of its international presence, it is now described as the key limit to a satisfactory performance at the global level. The interplay between the two dimensions (international presence and global actorness) is easily unveiled: the EU’s atypical
entity as a new type of international player (which is seen as a strong element of its presence) invariably raises expectations as to what it should do; yet, its ambiguity limits its role performance fuelling harsh criticisms with regard to its actual global actorness. Paradoxically, what was seen as a key strength in defining the EU’s international presence is also regarded as its main weakness in terms of actorness. In this regard, some of the diplomats highlight how the distinction between high and low policies in EU external relations (Hoffmann 1966) contributes to delineating the EU role (JA2, SA1, ME3). Whereas some important competencies – such as international trade – are handled at the Community level, others – such as foreign policy, security and justice and home affairs – are conceived as standing firmly at the national level. The EU is generally described as an effective actor in those areas where there are clear delegated competencies at the Community level. In those areas, as we will see, the EU is seen to have a strong, undisputed role on the international scene (Figure 14.2). This is the case for international trade and technological development (IN2), but also for regulation, a sector in which the EU is said to play a powerful role, probably more so than the US (JA2, IS1, US3). However, this strong relevance is often criticized as way of maintaining a privileged economic position on the international scene. As put by a South African diplomat, the developing world tends to see the EU as protectionist bloc, which uses technical barriers in order to protect its market while promoting an official policy of tariff removals (SA1). According to an Indian diplomat, the powerful role that the EU plays in international trade affords it a disproportionate representation in the World Trade Organization (WTO), which brings into question the actual multilateral vocation of the EU itself (IN2). The EU is also blamed for not being particularly transparent in its regulatory processes (IS1, US3). Furthermore, over-regulation is not only seen as a tacit instrument of power, but also as a burden on other countries, which inevitably slows down international cooperation (AU1).
