Home
Current Issue
Developments
Archive
Table of Contents
Surveys
Book Reviews
Discussion Forum
Information
Reading Room
Links of Interest
Search
Join our email list
Translate this page
  

Previous PageTable of ContentsNext Page

After Amsterdam: A Report on the Common Foreign and Security Policy

of the European Union

Franklin Dehousse*1

Full text available: PDF format *

Abstract

One of the objectives of the 1996-1997 Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) was to improve the functioning of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This was expressly foreseen in the Maastricht Treaty with regard to defence problems. The mandate of the IGC was in fact much broader.2

The results, however, have been quite limited. To give a quick summary, the intergovernmental nature of the CFSP has not been modified. The Treaty of Amsterdam has rationalized the CFSP instruments. The system of qualified majority voting has been simplified, but still allows the use of national vetoes. It has complicated both the decision-making and implementation processes. Finally, a slightly improved long-term perspective on the integration of defence has been exchanged for an equally slightly improved confirmation of NATO's supremacy in the defence realm.

The first part of this report looks at the stakes of the debate. The solutions adopted are then examined in the second part. This analysis enables us to draw clear conclusions regarding the objectives of the CFSP and the requirements they imply for the Member States.

* The free viewer (Acrobat Reader) for PDF file is available at the Adobe Systems.

1 * Professor at the University of Liège and at the College of Europe. The author was the Belgian representative in the Reflection Group, and the Special Representative of the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Intergovernmental Conference. He is still Special Representative. The present analysis must be considered as personal, and does not reflect an official position of the Belgian government.

2 See the report of the Reflection Group (Introduction, III) and the conclusions of the Torino European Council (Bull. EU 3-1996, pt. I.II).

Previous PageTable of ContentsNext Page





Top of Page

© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute.
This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:54PM