Papers by Caterina Carta
Performance, Policy, Power, 2012
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Strategic narratives: communication power and the new
world order, Global Affairs, 1:2, 215-216
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009 brought about important changes in Eur... more The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009 brought about important changes in European Union (EU) foreign policy. Chief among these was the establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) in January 2011. The (in) famous 2005 Draft Constitutional Treaty had placed big hopes on the EEAS - originally conceived of as an EU 'foreign ministry' of sorts. However, the Lisbon Treaty would preside over a watering down of the EEAS in order to allay concerns amongst those member states that wanted to prevent a supranational drift in EU foreign policy. The much-awaited EEAS did therefore not amount to any significant changes in the rules of decision-making governing EU foreign policy, which remains by and large an intergovernmental business. In other words, EU foreign policy continues to suffer from a high degree of fragmentation and a lack of strategic direction.
The EEAS faced the challenge of fighting through its own establishment as an institution while having to cope with an unusually volatile political strategic environment - one characterized by Europe's financial and political crisis, growing instability in the broader European neighbourhood and a structural shift of global economic and political resources towards Asia. Thus, Lady Ashton had a point when saying that setting up the EEAS at the time was like "trying to fly a plane while still bolting the wings on". On top of that, Ashton was widely criticized for her lack of public appeal and political ambition.
The appointment of Federica Mogherini as the second High Representative/Vice President of the European Commission (HR/VP) is unlikely to be a game changer. The kind of systemic decision-making hurdles that beset EU foreign policy transcend the qualities of an individual. Yet, Mogherini might well have brought much-needed fresh air into EU foreign policy. Facing widespread suspicion about her allegedly pro-Russian traits, Mogherini "charmed her way" through her confirmation hearing in the European Parliament and has proven to be a good listener and an effective negotiator in the Council. Those virtues notwithstanding, there is only so much we can expect from an HR/VP.
First, the High Representative and the EEAS cannot make up for the absence of cohesion amongst the real heads of European foreign policy: the member states. The lack of chemistry within the Franco-German 'axis' and the UK's wavering commitment to the European integration process do not bode particularly well in this regard. Secondly, there just isn't that much the new HR/VP can do about Europe's relative economic decline. The shadow of the 2008 financial crisis continues to loom large - and still takes up much of the Council's political bandwidth. Third, and critically, the EU appears to be 'encircled' by a number of daunting foreign policy challenges. To its south lies a wide-variety of 'unconventional' foes: from a meltdown of state authority in the Sahel region, through terrorism, onto challenges like organized crime or piracy. To the East lies the spectre of a rather conventional threat: state-on-state warfare. Regardless of one's view about its degree of success, the EU has been rather active in combatting some of the challenges present in its southern neighbourhood, not least through its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). And it has also proven active in trying to confront Russia over Ukraine, by way of diplomacy and economic sanctions. Yet, when it comes to 'reassuring' Central and Eastern European member states in the face of Russian assertiveness, NATO appears to have stolen much of the EU's limelight.
Putting aside the EU's limitations, there are things the new HR/VP can do to mitigate Europe's relative decline on the global stage. One of those things is to address the artificial division of competences that exists in EU foreign policy. Indeed, there is much the HR/VP can do to strengthen links between the EEAS and the Commission with a view to ensure that the 'economic' and 'security' components of EU foreign policy are mutually supportive. In this regard, Ashton's heritage - notably the 2013 EEAS review and the joint Communication on Comprehensive Approach - contains some interesting ideas about how to make the most out of what is available and maximise potential synergies. Suggested actions include holding regular meetings amongst 'Relex' Commissioners, establishing clearer guidelines for inter-institutional cooperation, and having the EEAS rein in the work programme of the trio of rotating presidencies. Enhancing institutional coordination and healing the rift between institutions would be at the core of this act of mending. And Mogherini seems to be both willing and able to bring this about.
No: a new HR/VP cannot make up for the lack of agreement among the member states. But she can help the EU institutions and the member states forge a new public diplomacy strategy, one that builds on potential synergies between the EU's 'domestic' and 'global' aspirations. It seems that by crafting the EU's common positions around the notion of 'interest' (rather than 'values') Mogherini may have begun to do just that. For too long, the EU abused a distinctively 'normative' foreign policy narrative. And as Europe and the world around it become increasingly unstable, the EU's normative pedigree appears to have worn out. Re-establishing a more frank and open relationship with key partners - one based on an acknowledgement of each other's merits and needs - could thus help rebuild the EU's credibility.
お問い合わせ:
EUIJ早稲田 運営事務局
早稲田大学 早稲田キャンパス 120-4号館 3階
TEL:03-5286-8568 FAX:03-5286-8579
E-mail: euij-office@list.waseda.jp URL: http://www.euij-waseda.jp/
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Books by Caterina Carta
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Based on extensive empirical work by a cross-European group of researchers, this book assesses th... more Based on extensive empirical work by a cross-European group of researchers, this book assesses the impact of the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) on the national foreign policy-making processes and institutions of the EU member states. As such, the contributions cover both the involvement of the national diplomatic and foreign policy actors in shaping the outlook of the EEAS and its mission, as well as the changes (or not) it has produced for those actors of the member states. The analysis draws in theoretical frameworks from Europeanization and socialization, but also from intergovernmental frameworks of policy-making within the European Union.
An introduction by the editors outlines the issues and trends examined in the book and establishes the theoretical and methodological framework. Split into 2 sections, Part I: EEAS and national diplomacies as part of global and European structures has contributions by Richard Whitman, Rosa Balfour, Christian Lequesne, Caterina Carta and Simon Duke. Part II: National diplomacies shaping and being shaped by the EEAS is covered by Daniel Fiott, Fabien Terpan, Cornelius Adebahr, Andrea Frontini, Ignacio Molina and Alicia Sorroza, Laura C. Ferreira-Pereira, Alena Vysotskaya G. Vieira and Louise van Schaik, Grzegorz Gromadzki, Mark Rhinard, Jakob Lewander and Sara Norrevik, Sabina Kajnc Lange, Ruby Gropas and George Tzogopoulos, Vít Benes and Kristi Raik.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Leading scholars in discourse analysis and European foreign policy join force in this book, marki... more Leading scholars in discourse analysis and European foreign policy join force in this book, marking a real breakthrough in the literature. Not only do they offer original perspectives on European foreign policy, but they bring together various theories on foreign policy discourses that remain too often isolated from each other.
This theoretical diversity is clearly reflected in the book’s four-pronged structure: Part I - Post-structuralist Approaches (with contributions from Thomas Diez, Henrik Larsen and Beste Isleyne). Part II - Constructivist Approaches (with contributions from Knud Erik Jørgensen, Jan Orbie, Ferdi de Ville, Esther Barbé, Anna Herranz-Surrallés and Michal Natorski) Part III - Critical Discourse Analytical Approaches (with contributions from Senem Aydin-Düzgit, Amelie Kutter, Ruth Wodak, Salomi Boukala, and Caterina Carta. Part IV- Discoursive Institutionalist Approaches (with contributions from Ben Rosamond, Antoine Rayroux, and Vivien A. Schmidt).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Peer reviewed articles by Caterina Carta
n the field of political theory, few authors have spurred intellectual tirades and triggered coll... more n the field of political theory, few authors have spurred intellectual tirades and triggered collective fantasy as much as the sixteenth-century Florentine Secretary Niccoló Machiavelli. Despite all controversies, in the discipline of International Relations (IR) Machiavelli and his The Prince have been almost exclusively associated with classical realism. This largely unchallenged association contributed to the edification of the myth of The Prince as the ruthless symbol of raison d’état, carrying transcendental lessons about the nature of politics and a set of prescriptions on how helmsmen should behave to seize, maintain, and reinforce their power. The realist hijacking of Machiavelli is at the core of the foundation of classical realism as an IR theory and its location at the very epicentre of IR as a discipline. This appropriation has, in turn, obscured alternative myths of The Prince, which depart from Machiavelli’s reflections on the Principati nuovi to read The Prince as a radical manifesto for political change. The opening of the semantic space in the field of IR – spurred by the so-called interpretive turn – offers an opportunity to break this monochromatic reading. This article delves into two competing myths of The Prince: the classical realist myth and Gramsci’s ‘progressive’ one to demonstrate its contested nature.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This introductory contribution frames the theoretical and methodological endeavour of the special... more This introductory contribution frames the theoretical and methodological endeavour of the special issue. The underlying goal of the special issue is two-fold: On the one hand, it aims to shed light on the diversity of discourse theories and related toolkits for analysis. On the other hand, it aims at applying these approaches to the European Union’s (EU) discursive practices, with special attention to foreign policy discourses. All contributions revolve around a central focus: the manifold ways in which various EU institutional, national or societal actors employ different discursive strategies (such as
justification, legitimation, and argumentation) related to foreign policy with bilateral partners; within multi-lateral milieus or vis-á-vis domestic audiences. In the last section, the contributions to this special issue are briefly summarised.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This contribution focuses on the implications of the institutional reform advanced by the Lisbon ... more This contribution focuses on the implications of the institutional reform advanced by the Lisbon Treaty for the framing of discourses of European institutional actors. The article adopts a focused linguistic strategy aimed at identifying patterns of pronominal selection as useful tools to depict both the ways in which different EU actors in Brussels elaborate their sense of belonging, and also patterns of horizontal and vertical inter-institutional cooperation and conflict. The article firstly introduces the data and methodology employed in the analysis. Secondly, it sheds light on the main institutional arrangements established
in the aftermath of Lisbon. Thirdly, it illustrates how referential/nomination strategies are on aggregate realised by interviewees. Finally, it presents an analysis of pronominal selection and contextualises the difficulties of individual actors working for the EU’s institutions in dealing with the current institutional structure.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Caterina Carta
The EEAS faced the challenge of fighting through its own establishment as an institution while having to cope with an unusually volatile political strategic environment - one characterized by Europe's financial and political crisis, growing instability in the broader European neighbourhood and a structural shift of global economic and political resources towards Asia. Thus, Lady Ashton had a point when saying that setting up the EEAS at the time was like "trying to fly a plane while still bolting the wings on". On top of that, Ashton was widely criticized for her lack of public appeal and political ambition.
The appointment of Federica Mogherini as the second High Representative/Vice President of the European Commission (HR/VP) is unlikely to be a game changer. The kind of systemic decision-making hurdles that beset EU foreign policy transcend the qualities of an individual. Yet, Mogherini might well have brought much-needed fresh air into EU foreign policy. Facing widespread suspicion about her allegedly pro-Russian traits, Mogherini "charmed her way" through her confirmation hearing in the European Parliament and has proven to be a good listener and an effective negotiator in the Council. Those virtues notwithstanding, there is only so much we can expect from an HR/VP.
First, the High Representative and the EEAS cannot make up for the absence of cohesion amongst the real heads of European foreign policy: the member states. The lack of chemistry within the Franco-German 'axis' and the UK's wavering commitment to the European integration process do not bode particularly well in this regard. Secondly, there just isn't that much the new HR/VP can do about Europe's relative economic decline. The shadow of the 2008 financial crisis continues to loom large - and still takes up much of the Council's political bandwidth. Third, and critically, the EU appears to be 'encircled' by a number of daunting foreign policy challenges. To its south lies a wide-variety of 'unconventional' foes: from a meltdown of state authority in the Sahel region, through terrorism, onto challenges like organized crime or piracy. To the East lies the spectre of a rather conventional threat: state-on-state warfare. Regardless of one's view about its degree of success, the EU has been rather active in combatting some of the challenges present in its southern neighbourhood, not least through its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). And it has also proven active in trying to confront Russia over Ukraine, by way of diplomacy and economic sanctions. Yet, when it comes to 'reassuring' Central and Eastern European member states in the face of Russian assertiveness, NATO appears to have stolen much of the EU's limelight.
Putting aside the EU's limitations, there are things the new HR/VP can do to mitigate Europe's relative decline on the global stage. One of those things is to address the artificial division of competences that exists in EU foreign policy. Indeed, there is much the HR/VP can do to strengthen links between the EEAS and the Commission with a view to ensure that the 'economic' and 'security' components of EU foreign policy are mutually supportive. In this regard, Ashton's heritage - notably the 2013 EEAS review and the joint Communication on Comprehensive Approach - contains some interesting ideas about how to make the most out of what is available and maximise potential synergies. Suggested actions include holding regular meetings amongst 'Relex' Commissioners, establishing clearer guidelines for inter-institutional cooperation, and having the EEAS rein in the work programme of the trio of rotating presidencies. Enhancing institutional coordination and healing the rift between institutions would be at the core of this act of mending. And Mogherini seems to be both willing and able to bring this about.
No: a new HR/VP cannot make up for the lack of agreement among the member states. But she can help the EU institutions and the member states forge a new public diplomacy strategy, one that builds on potential synergies between the EU's 'domestic' and 'global' aspirations. It seems that by crafting the EU's common positions around the notion of 'interest' (rather than 'values') Mogherini may have begun to do just that. For too long, the EU abused a distinctively 'normative' foreign policy narrative. And as Europe and the world around it become increasingly unstable, the EU's normative pedigree appears to have worn out. Re-establishing a more frank and open relationship with key partners - one based on an acknowledgement of each other's merits and needs - could thus help rebuild the EU's credibility.
お問い合わせ:
EUIJ早稲田 運営事務局
早稲田大学 早稲田キャンパス 120-4号館 3階
TEL:03-5286-8568 FAX:03-5286-8579
E-mail: euij-office@list.waseda.jp URL: http://www.euij-waseda.jp/
Books by Caterina Carta
An introduction by the editors outlines the issues and trends examined in the book and establishes the theoretical and methodological framework. Split into 2 sections, Part I: EEAS and national diplomacies as part of global and European structures has contributions by Richard Whitman, Rosa Balfour, Christian Lequesne, Caterina Carta and Simon Duke. Part II: National diplomacies shaping and being shaped by the EEAS is covered by Daniel Fiott, Fabien Terpan, Cornelius Adebahr, Andrea Frontini, Ignacio Molina and Alicia Sorroza, Laura C. Ferreira-Pereira, Alena Vysotskaya G. Vieira and Louise van Schaik, Grzegorz Gromadzki, Mark Rhinard, Jakob Lewander and Sara Norrevik, Sabina Kajnc Lange, Ruby Gropas and George Tzogopoulos, Vít Benes and Kristi Raik.
This theoretical diversity is clearly reflected in the book’s four-pronged structure: Part I - Post-structuralist Approaches (with contributions from Thomas Diez, Henrik Larsen and Beste Isleyne). Part II - Constructivist Approaches (with contributions from Knud Erik Jørgensen, Jan Orbie, Ferdi de Ville, Esther Barbé, Anna Herranz-Surrallés and Michal Natorski) Part III - Critical Discourse Analytical Approaches (with contributions from Senem Aydin-Düzgit, Amelie Kutter, Ruth Wodak, Salomi Boukala, and Caterina Carta. Part IV- Discoursive Institutionalist Approaches (with contributions from Ben Rosamond, Antoine Rayroux, and Vivien A. Schmidt).
Peer reviewed articles by Caterina Carta
justification, legitimation, and argumentation) related to foreign policy with bilateral partners; within multi-lateral milieus or vis-á-vis domestic audiences. In the last section, the contributions to this special issue are briefly summarised.
in the aftermath of Lisbon. Thirdly, it illustrates how referential/nomination strategies are on aggregate realised by interviewees. Finally, it presents an analysis of pronominal selection and contextualises the difficulties of individual actors working for the EU’s institutions in dealing with the current institutional structure.
The EEAS faced the challenge of fighting through its own establishment as an institution while having to cope with an unusually volatile political strategic environment - one characterized by Europe's financial and political crisis, growing instability in the broader European neighbourhood and a structural shift of global economic and political resources towards Asia. Thus, Lady Ashton had a point when saying that setting up the EEAS at the time was like "trying to fly a plane while still bolting the wings on". On top of that, Ashton was widely criticized for her lack of public appeal and political ambition.
The appointment of Federica Mogherini as the second High Representative/Vice President of the European Commission (HR/VP) is unlikely to be a game changer. The kind of systemic decision-making hurdles that beset EU foreign policy transcend the qualities of an individual. Yet, Mogherini might well have brought much-needed fresh air into EU foreign policy. Facing widespread suspicion about her allegedly pro-Russian traits, Mogherini "charmed her way" through her confirmation hearing in the European Parliament and has proven to be a good listener and an effective negotiator in the Council. Those virtues notwithstanding, there is only so much we can expect from an HR/VP.
First, the High Representative and the EEAS cannot make up for the absence of cohesion amongst the real heads of European foreign policy: the member states. The lack of chemistry within the Franco-German 'axis' and the UK's wavering commitment to the European integration process do not bode particularly well in this regard. Secondly, there just isn't that much the new HR/VP can do about Europe's relative economic decline. The shadow of the 2008 financial crisis continues to loom large - and still takes up much of the Council's political bandwidth. Third, and critically, the EU appears to be 'encircled' by a number of daunting foreign policy challenges. To its south lies a wide-variety of 'unconventional' foes: from a meltdown of state authority in the Sahel region, through terrorism, onto challenges like organized crime or piracy. To the East lies the spectre of a rather conventional threat: state-on-state warfare. Regardless of one's view about its degree of success, the EU has been rather active in combatting some of the challenges present in its southern neighbourhood, not least through its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). And it has also proven active in trying to confront Russia over Ukraine, by way of diplomacy and economic sanctions. Yet, when it comes to 'reassuring' Central and Eastern European member states in the face of Russian assertiveness, NATO appears to have stolen much of the EU's limelight.
Putting aside the EU's limitations, there are things the new HR/VP can do to mitigate Europe's relative decline on the global stage. One of those things is to address the artificial division of competences that exists in EU foreign policy. Indeed, there is much the HR/VP can do to strengthen links between the EEAS and the Commission with a view to ensure that the 'economic' and 'security' components of EU foreign policy are mutually supportive. In this regard, Ashton's heritage - notably the 2013 EEAS review and the joint Communication on Comprehensive Approach - contains some interesting ideas about how to make the most out of what is available and maximise potential synergies. Suggested actions include holding regular meetings amongst 'Relex' Commissioners, establishing clearer guidelines for inter-institutional cooperation, and having the EEAS rein in the work programme of the trio of rotating presidencies. Enhancing institutional coordination and healing the rift between institutions would be at the core of this act of mending. And Mogherini seems to be both willing and able to bring this about.
No: a new HR/VP cannot make up for the lack of agreement among the member states. But she can help the EU institutions and the member states forge a new public diplomacy strategy, one that builds on potential synergies between the EU's 'domestic' and 'global' aspirations. It seems that by crafting the EU's common positions around the notion of 'interest' (rather than 'values') Mogherini may have begun to do just that. For too long, the EU abused a distinctively 'normative' foreign policy narrative. And as Europe and the world around it become increasingly unstable, the EU's normative pedigree appears to have worn out. Re-establishing a more frank and open relationship with key partners - one based on an acknowledgement of each other's merits and needs - could thus help rebuild the EU's credibility.
お問い合わせ:
EUIJ早稲田 運営事務局
早稲田大学 早稲田キャンパス 120-4号館 3階
TEL:03-5286-8568 FAX:03-5286-8579
E-mail: euij-office@list.waseda.jp URL: http://www.euij-waseda.jp/
An introduction by the editors outlines the issues and trends examined in the book and establishes the theoretical and methodological framework. Split into 2 sections, Part I: EEAS and national diplomacies as part of global and European structures has contributions by Richard Whitman, Rosa Balfour, Christian Lequesne, Caterina Carta and Simon Duke. Part II: National diplomacies shaping and being shaped by the EEAS is covered by Daniel Fiott, Fabien Terpan, Cornelius Adebahr, Andrea Frontini, Ignacio Molina and Alicia Sorroza, Laura C. Ferreira-Pereira, Alena Vysotskaya G. Vieira and Louise van Schaik, Grzegorz Gromadzki, Mark Rhinard, Jakob Lewander and Sara Norrevik, Sabina Kajnc Lange, Ruby Gropas and George Tzogopoulos, Vít Benes and Kristi Raik.
This theoretical diversity is clearly reflected in the book’s four-pronged structure: Part I - Post-structuralist Approaches (with contributions from Thomas Diez, Henrik Larsen and Beste Isleyne). Part II - Constructivist Approaches (with contributions from Knud Erik Jørgensen, Jan Orbie, Ferdi de Ville, Esther Barbé, Anna Herranz-Surrallés and Michal Natorski) Part III - Critical Discourse Analytical Approaches (with contributions from Senem Aydin-Düzgit, Amelie Kutter, Ruth Wodak, Salomi Boukala, and Caterina Carta. Part IV- Discoursive Institutionalist Approaches (with contributions from Ben Rosamond, Antoine Rayroux, and Vivien A. Schmidt).
justification, legitimation, and argumentation) related to foreign policy with bilateral partners; within multi-lateral milieus or vis-á-vis domestic audiences. In the last section, the contributions to this special issue are briefly summarised.
in the aftermath of Lisbon. Thirdly, it illustrates how referential/nomination strategies are on aggregate realised by interviewees. Finally, it presents an analysis of pronominal selection and contextualises the difficulties of individual actors working for the EU’s institutions in dealing with the current institutional structure.