EU Presidency

How did the three Nordic European Union member states approach their periods as holders of the European Union (EU) Council Presidency? Two radically different predictions about the impact of the Presidency on member state behaviour can be found in the literature. Some maintain that the position functions as an amplifier, strengthening the already existing tendency to propagate national concerns. Others argue that the Presidency functions as a silencer, subordinating national material interests to the benefit of common European concerns. In this article we analyse the ways in which Finland, Sweden and Denmark actually performed the Presidency role. Which of the competing interpretations is most appropriate? Was the Presidency role performed differently by the three countries? Our main finding is that the Presidency generally functioned as an amplifier during the Nordic presidencies. There are, however, interesting differences between the three states, Denmark being the least constrained in using the Presidency to further national interests whereas Finland was most anxious not to violate norms of impartiality and neutrality, even in cases where such behaviour ran contrary to national interests.

Using a role theory framework, this thesis seeks better to understand how the Council Presidency functions as a policy actor, specifically within the sphere of Crisis Management policy-making as enshrined in the ESDP before the Lisbon Treaty. It focuses on explaining Presidency role variation and on identifying the main factors (at policy level, Presidency level, the level of contingent factors, and at actor/Member State level) responsible for such variation within Crisis Management policy. For these purposes, the thesis draws on the 2007 Portuguese Presidency as a case-study which illustrates how these factors and both self and alter expectations about Presidency behaviour are closely related to actual performance.

The main conclusion of the thesis is that role theory allows different theoretical contributions to be combined into a single and more comprehensive explanatory framework. By shedding light on the apparently contradictory actions of different Presidencies, thus, this thesis’ role theory framework opens the door not only to a sharper conception both of Crisis Management policy and the Presidency itself, but also to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the behaviour of other policy actors and the evolution of different European policy areas.

Zaprezentowana matryca logiczna projektu została dostosowana do kategorii charakterystycznych dla polskiej prezydencji. Opisane przez nas wcześniej zmiany dotyczą, po pierwsze, logiki interwencji, gdzie cel główny i cel szczegółowy zostały zastąpione priorytetami oraz celami ministerialnymi. Pomimo odmiennego nazewnictwa, które będzie z pewnością przy okazji każdej kolejnej prezydencji ulegało zmianie, zachowano główną cechę takiego rozróżnienia, a mianowicie hierarchiczność. Świadczy o tym pewna kumulatywność, zakładająca, że realizacja poszczególnych celów ministerialnych przyczyni się do osiągnięcia trzech priorytetów zawartych w część strategicznej oficjalnego Programu polskiej prezydencji. Dodatkowo o hierarchicznej podrzędności celów ministerialnych wobec priorytetów świadczy ich zawartość. Przypomnijmy, że poza wytycznymi do prac w ramach różnych formacji Rady niejednokrotnie zawierały one dodatkowe zadania nieprzewidziane w części operacyjnej oficjalnego Programu polskiej prezydencji (na przykład cele Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej).

The article reflects on Croatia's EU Council Presidency in the first half of 2020. The programme for Croatia's Presidency had four pillars: a Europe that is developing, a Europe that connects, a Europe that protects and an influential Europe. The article focuses on the various challenges faced by the Croatian Presidency during its six-month term. The period of Croatia's Presidency will forever be remembered as the time when the COVID-19 pandemic began. Other demanding issues also had to be dealt with: the UK leaving the EU; the challenges of European (non-) solidarity; the continuation of the enlargement process, with the green light being given to Northern Macedonia and Albania; the migrant crisis at the border of Turkey and Greece; the preparations for the EU's 2021-7 budget; and the COVID-19 recovery plan.

Existing literature is overwhelmingly sceptical about the capacity of the Council Presidency to shape the EU agenda. The Presidency's ability to promote private concerns is considered highly limited and, typically, the Presidency is depicted as a "responsabilité sans pouvior'. This article challenges the conventional wisdom on theoretical and empirical grounds. Theoretically, it develops a conceptual framework that expands the notion of influence, by distinguishing between three forms of agenda-shaping: agenda-setting, agenda-structuring and agenda exclusion. In this exercise, I draw on theories of bargaining and decision- making developed in international relations and American politics. Empirically, the article provides an inventory of the instruments available to the Presidency within each form of agenda-shaping, as well as illustrative cases that demonstrate how Presidencies regularly influence outcomes in EU policy-making. Illustrations are drawn primarily from the six consecutive Presidencies in the period 1999- 2001: Germany, Finland, Portugal, France, Sweden and Belgium.

The Lisbon Treaty has introduced numerous changes to the shape and role of the Council Presidency. However, it seems that the actual effect of those changes is not so big as might appear from the text of the Treaty. While a legal and institutional analysis of the Presidency on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon gives a clear picture of the significantly changed role, quantitative and qualitative empirical research conducted by the author among officials involved in the Presidencies of Spain and Belgium do not fully confirm this picture. This article aims at analyzing the reasons and manifestations of certain discrepancies between the planned shape and powers of the Council Presidency in the Treaty of Lisbon and its actual role in practice.

The Council presidency of the European Union (EU) offers a Member State the opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to coordinate complex policy processes at the international level. For many governmental departments this is a time where years of preparative work need to generate results
during very technical and domain-specific round tables, meetings and negotiations. Yet, a presidency also creates opportunities for actors outside this very closed circle of national and European actors. In this chapter we will look at some of these players and analyse how they have approached
the 2010 Belgian Presidency.

In 2011 Turkish officials began indicating their intention to suspend all contact with Cyprus’s presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU), slated for the second half of 2012, given the issues surrounding the unresolved Cyprus conflict. This came as the latest development in a long and arduous path of Turkey’s application for EU membership that began in 1987. This paper provides the context – the Cyprus conflict, Turkey’s EU accession negotiations, and the Cyprus reunification talks – in understanding the reasons and consequences of Ankara’s boycott of the Cyprus presidency. The article also considers the evolving nature and the role of the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, especially after the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, and how this may have played into Turkey’s calculations in calling for the boycott.

Keywords
Cyprus; Turkey; EU Council; rotating presidency

The article addresses several issues that constitute the main areas of Polish-Romanian relations in the 21st century in the political dimension and in the broad sense of security. Relations between Poland and Romania have been characterized in the context of the membership of both countries in the European Union. Particular emphasis was placed on the period of the Romanian Presidency of the Council of EU, which lasted from January to the end of June 2019. The article indicates the most important common interests of both countries, the ways for their implementation, as well as potential opportunities for the development of bilateral and multilateral cooperation. The article also takes into account the key challenges that Poland and Romania must face in connection with EU membership.

„Politeja” 2013, nr 1
This article concerns the evaluation of the Polish, Danish and Cypriot presidencies in the field of the European Union enlargement policy. In order to assess an effectiveness of both countries he uses a project assessment perspective, which theoretical model was initially developed in the book Skuteczność polskiej prezydencji w Unii Europejskiej (trans.: The effectiveness of the Polish presidency in the European Union). A thesis standing behind this approach says that after the treaty of Lisbon has come into force, and has changed crucial functions of each presidency, we can’t any more consider a country chairing the Council neither as honest broker nor as representative of own national interests. A project assessment perspective delivers more adequate categories based on project management theory and practice. In the empirical part of the study the author focuses on the effects of Polish, Danish and Cypriot activities in the field of relations with six candidate countries since 1 July 2011 till 31 December 2012.

Poland, being the biggest country among the new Member States, has a well-defi ned foreign policy interest, particularly towards the Eastern neighbourhood. This article examines the involvement of Polish Presidency of the Council in the development of the foreign and security policy of the European Union. Considering the serious limitations placed on the role of the rotating Presidency in the post-Lisbon institutional framework, the analysis investigates the patterns of action Poland followed, which involved the providing of the operational backup for the High Representative as well as bringing its own contributions to the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council. As the article demonstrates, the rotating Presidency can still redound to the further development of the foreign and security policy.

Upon proposal of the East European Security Research Initiative Foundation, a selection of Slovakian experts commented on the probable changes in Slovakia’s foreign policy, especially with respect to the Visegrad Group, the Eastern Partnership, the European Union, NATO, Ukraine, and Russia.
Q1: What changes in Slovakia’s foreign policy are to be expected towards V4, EaP, EU and NATO?
Q2: Should we expect changes in Slovakia’s politics towards Ukraine, Russia-Ukraine conflict and the issue of sanctions against Russia?

Overall, as the COVID-19 crisis unfolded, the EU proved capable to act. Crisis management addressing the pandemic benefited from the fact that Germany held the presidency of the EU Council in the second half of 2020 and could build upon its traditional approach: developing European capabilities, including all governments, and being prepared for the unexpected. Now, going forward, Germany needs to use its experience with complexity and uncertainty to help form a strategic doctrine for the EU

The present article is based on an understanding of the rotating Presidency of the European Union (EU) as a channel of influence of special importance for smaller Member States. Its empirical focus is on Portugal’s role in EU-Africa relations, contextualising the Presidency in the broader range of strategies adopted by Portuguese authorities to exert influence in this domain of European external action. Thus, the use of the Presidency is examined in parallel with other strategies such as multilateralism, prioritization, specialization and coalition-building. Apart from contributing to a better knowledge and understanding of Portugal’s involvement in EU-Africa relations, this study helps appraising the possible relevance of future Portuguese presidencies in this realm, taking into account the important implications that the Lisbon Treaty had for the Presidency in foreign policy matters.

The field of conflict prevention is a somewhat abnormal one within the EU, mainly because it is fairly recent and it spreads across different pillars, involving not only communitarian, but also intergovernmental institutions, resources, and decision-making procedures. The Presidency of the Council of the European Union, on the other hand, is an entity whose role and relevance are generally neglected or dimished. Nevertheless and in spite of its apparent powerless nature, it is for many one of the core entities of the European Union.

This paper explores the potential influence of the EU Presidency over decision- and policy-formulation and argues that its role, namely in the field of European conflict prevention, is far more relevant than most authors recognise. For that purpose, after some initial considerations over the nature of the field of European conflict prevention and an overview of its most relevant documents and activities in the last 10-15 years, the origins and developments of the EU Presidency in the last decades are traced in order to explore the role it can currently play on what concerns (external) conflict prevention policy-formulation.

In the end, it is shown that, even though in varying degrees, mostly due to the EU's pillared-structure, the Presidency can indeed have a saying and a real impact in the domain of conflict prevention (as in most other EU policy areas).

The article addresses several issues that constitute the main areas of Polish-Romanian relations in the 21 st century in the political dimension and in the broad sense of security. Relations between Poland and Romania have been characterized in the context of the membership of both countries in the European Union. Particular emphasis was placed on the period of the Romanian Presidency of the Council of EU, which lasted from January to the end of June 2019. The article indicates the most important common interests of both countries, the ways for their implementation, as well as potential opportunities for the development of bilateral and multilateral cooperation. The article also takes into account the key challenges that Poland and Romania must face in connection with EU membership.

Niniejsza publikacja jest efektem pracy zespołu badawczego Klubu Jagiellońskiego (KJ) trwającej od grudnia 2011 do czerwca 2012 roku. Pomysł przeprowadzenia ewaluacji pierwszej polskiej prezydencji zrodził się wraz z końcem projektu „Monitor polskiej prezydencji 2011”, który realizowany był przez ówczesną Katedrę Polityk Europejskich KJ. Inicjatywa ta była finansowana w ramach grantu Ministerstwa Spraw Zagranicznych Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, trwała od lutego do lipca 2011 roku. Jej celami były: po pierwsze – monitoring przygotowań administracji rządowej do sprawowania przewodnictwa w Radzie Unii Europejskiej, po drugie – edukacja z zakresu instytucji i polityk Unii Europejskiej. Kontynuacja badania polskiej prezydencji prowadzona była w oparciu o zasoby własne Klubu Jagiellońskiego oraz zasoby zespołu badawczego, złożonego ze studentów i doktorantów krakowskich uczelni, nad którym nadzór sprawował dr hab. Krzysztof Szczerski

Intencją tej pracy jest zaprezentowanie jednego z równouprawnionych sposobów oceny polskiego przewodnictwa w Radzie, który wskazuje na metody jakimi próbowano realizować ważne państwowe interesy. Założenie to wynika z przekonania, że analizowanie prezydencji jedynie pod kątem jej sprawności w administrowaniu bieżącymi sprawami UE, i określanie na tej podstawie sukcesu lub porażki, jest niekompletne. Państwa członkowskie oprócz reprezentowania interesów europejskich
w czasie prezydencji realizują także swoej preferencje w sposób mniej jawny.

This paper analyzes the functions of the stable presidency of the European Council following the reform of the Lisbon Treaty, the characters, the legitimacy, external representation and inter-institutional relations, administrative infrastructure and accountability.

It exaggerates the possibilities of the Presidency of the Council and create exaggerated expectations. Finish the halfyearly
mandate having made progress on pending proposals as a whole, to reach some and unblock some others, would be a great  success for a presidency.  / Se magnifican en exceso el ejercicio de la presidencia del Consejo y se crean expectativas exageradas. Finalizar el mandato semestral habiendo hecho progresar en su conjunto las propuestas pendientes, culminar algunas y desbloquear otras, constituiría un gran éxito para una presidencia.

The basic questions of this book concern the contemporary role and importance of the presidency in the European Union. How has the presidency – initially quite a modest function – been able to gain such a significant role for the EU proceedings? It managed to initiate far reaching projects, solve basic negotiating problems, or – until the Lisbon treaty – to represent the Union externally. What are the main challenges related to its preparations and how it is run? Answers to these questions seem to be necessary to capture the elements of the contemporary dispute over the political leadership in the European Union, narrowed down to the issue of the presidency and its institutional
role in the EU decision-making system. Hence, another question arises: What is the significance of the presidency for the general models of European integration? Understanding that would help us not only to explain the long-term integration trends, but would also provide a reference framework for practical projects that might be undertaken by future presidencies. The basic theory of European integration tested here is institutionalism in its various formulations.