Principles and practices of EU external representation - Asser Institute

CLEER WORKING PAPERS 2012/5Van Elsuwege and Merketrisdiction. Responsibility for ensuring compliance with the principle is entrustedto the Council and the High Representative (see further Chapter IV).Also with regard to CFSP, the obligation of systematic cooperation has beenconsiderably fortified. Article 32 TEU builds further on the pre-Lisbon requirementto ‘consult one another within the European Council and the Council onany matter of foreign and security policy of general interest’. The aim is nownot merely to ensure that the Union is able to assert its interests and valueson the international scene, which was already included in former Article 16TEU, but also and essentially ‘to determine a common approach’. The definitionof such a common approach imposes on the High Representative and theMinisters for Foreign Affairs of the Member States a requirement to coordinatetheir activities within the Council. Equally, the Member States’ diplomatic missionsand Union delegations have to cooperate and shall moreover contributeto formulating and implementing this common approach. While these provisionsconstitute significant requirements that are formulated in binding terms, 17 theirpractical implications are not further specified and their essential interpretationis left to the individual discretion of the Member States. 18Article 34 TEU further requires Member States to coordinate their action ininternational organisations and at international conferences; Article 35 TEUassigns diplomatic and consular missions of the Member States and Uniondelegations to cooperate in ensuring that decisions defining Union positionsand actions are complied with and upheld; and Article 27 TEU obliges the EEASto cooperate with Member States diplomatic services. This impressive rangeof Treaty provisions on cooperation in the area of CFSP could, at least intheory, provide the backbone of a well-established system of cooperation andcoordination at EU-level. 192.2. The Duty of ConsistencyThe importance of coherence and consistency is stressed in ample declarations,speeches and policy documents on issues of foreign policy. 20 The LisbonTreaty changes this and raises those principles more than ever to the consti-17 Denza even believes that these provisions ‘cannot be reconciled with independent nationstatus’, see E. Denza, ‘Lines in the Sand: Between Common Foreign Policy and Single ForeignPolicy’ in T. Tridimas and P. Nebbia (eds.), European Union Law for the twenty-First Century:Rethinking the New Legal Order. Volume 1: Constitutional And Public Law. External Relations,Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004, at 269.18 See further: C. Hillion and R. A. Wessel, ‘Competence Distribution in EU External Relationsafter ECOWAS: Clarification or Continued Fuzziness?’ 46(2) CML Rev. (2009), at 81.19 M. Cremona, ‘Coherence in European Union Foreign Relations Law’ in P. Koutrakos (ed.),European Foreign Policy: Legal and Political Perspectives, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2011, at75.20 For instance: “if we are to make a contribution that matches our potential, we need to bemore active, more coherent and more capable”(Council, ‘A Secure Europe in a Better World: EuropeanSecurity Strategy’, Brussels, 12 December 2003, at 11); “credibility requires consistency”(President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy, ‘Europe on the World Stage’, speechdelivered at Chatham House, London, 31 May 2012, EUCO 107/12, at 4); “we need CSDP actionto be based on coherent and effective strategies” (High Representative Catherine Ashton, ‘Com-40