Since the very inception of European integration in foreign and security policy more than five decades ago, the European Union has been continuously evolving as an actor in international relations. Despite a fast-growing literature on various aspects of the EU's external action, due to the complexity of this policy field in terms of issues and institutions and the changing geopolitical context, understanding the Union's external performance remains both conceptually and empirically challenging. To this end, this panel offers a comprehensive overview of institutional and diplomatic practices in EU foreign and security policy and draws on a range of theoretical and conceptual approaches, from role theory to institutionalist approaches. By looking at different policies and practices, such as digital diplomacy, crisis management, differentiated cooperation through informal groupings, the EU's response to the Russian war in Ukraine and the concept of strategic partnerships, we seek to examine the most pressing issues in EU foreign and security policy to date.

Europe’s Zeitenwende in the response to Russia’s war against Ukraine has received extensive scholarly attention and focused on adaptation processes of member states and of various EU policies. This paper zooms in on the position of the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission (HRVP) and its role in the EU’s adaptation to the war. How does the radically transformed security environment impact the role performance of the HRVP and – in turn – influence the ability of the EU to respond to the geopolitical challenge? Based on expert interviews and the analysis of policy documents and speeches, this paper argues that the rather swift role adaptation of the HRVP in a moment of general uncertainty mattered in the month following the attack and facilitated the military response of the EU. However, as the war dragged on, the HRVP and the member states returned to more established interaction patterns based on bureaucratic politics and national interest that restrict the room of manoeuvre of foreign policy agents on EU level. Theoretically, the paper demonstrates that role theory provides relevant insights into how – and to what effect – foreign policy agents implement their mandate beyond their formal institutional role in the interaction with their stakeholders. Empirically, the analysis points to the challenges of the long-term adaptation of the EU to the war in Ukraine due to a missing joint strategic culture that would facilitate joint action.

Digital technologies are transforming diplomatic practices. The negotiation of key texts is occurring in blended environments that involve a variety of digital tools, from WhatsApp to video-conferences and cloud-based archives. Traditional brick-and-mortar embassies are being complemented (and replaced) by virtual practices, chatbots and, in the case of Estonia, a data embassy. To what extent are these changes fundamentally transforming diplomacy, to suggest that diplomacy in Europe is going ‘posthuman’? Digital technologies are affecting the time and space of European diplomatic practices. An ever faster rhythm is making negotiations richer but not necessarily more inclusive. New digital sites of diplomacy are also challenging traditional diplomatic participation. The EU has contributed to level the playfield and keep diplomacy anchored in human decision-makers, but this approach is constantly challenged by the syrens of digital modernisation

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing war has put security cooperation in Europe under strain. Among other institutional reactions within the EU, such pressure triggered the occurrence of member states’ differentiated engagement to integrated efforts through the establishment of informal groupings. By conceptualizing informal groupings as types of differentiated cooperation, the article assesses the influence of informal groups on EU foreign policy, unravels their interaction with EU institutions and the formal EU foreign policy-making procedures, and evaluates their implications for EU security governance. To do so, it carries out a comparative study of the occurrence of informal groupings in EU response to two major events occurring in EU’s Eastern Neighborhood: the 2014 conflict and Russa’s subsequent destabilization of Ukraine; and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing Russia-Ukraine war. The article relies on a triangulation of data gathered from official documents and original interviews with relevant EU and member states’ policy makers.