The consistency of EU external action post-Lisbon: renewing appropriate measures against Zimbabwe in 2012

Anne-Claire Marangoni, Sophie Vanhoonacker

Research output: Contribution to journalSpecial issue

Abstract

The Lisbon Treaty has put the consistency of European Union (EU) external action high on the agenda but little is known about how this imperative is concretely given shape. Adopting a single-case-study approach on the EU’s decision in 2012 to renew the partial suspension of development cooperation with Zimbabwe (Article 96 measures), this contribution aims to provide better insights into the question of the consistency of this decision. More specifically, this article focuses on the Commission’s proposal, on the basis of which the renewal of the suspension was adopted. As a first step it examines the relevant legal (Treaty), substantial (policy framework) and procedural (decision-making) guidelines framing the consistency objective in the EU’s relations with Zimbabwe. While this three-level framework plays an important role in facilitating the consistency of the Commission proposal, it is also clear that it does not provide a sufficient guarantee for a consistent policy output. The case study on Zimbabwe shows how other factors such as the international context, the positions of the member states as well as the preferences and interests of individual Directorate Generals play an important role in the final outcome of the Commission’s decision-making process.

Original languageEnglish
Article number3
Number of pages22
JournalEuropean Integration Online Papers
Volume19
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Bibliographical note

© 2015 by Anne-Claire Marangoni and Sophie Vanhoonacker

Keywords

  • CFSP
  • development policy
  • European commission
  • Lisbon treaty
  • policy coordination
  • political science
  • trade policy

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The consistency of EU external action post-Lisbon: renewing appropriate measures against Zimbabwe in 2012'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this