The European Union (EU) has received a lot of attention in comparative politics and International Relations scholarship regarding its institutional design and the question whether and how it can be conceptualized in terms of statehood, or (only) in terms of an international organisation (sui generis). Building on its internal complexity and the relatively late consolidation of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), its “actorness” in international politics is so far poorly understood. The literature has focused on defining roles of the EU, looking at Europe as a normative power, an ethical power, a trade power or a structural power. However, recent developments have raised questions concerning the nascent geopolitical nature of the EU global presence. In this context, the panel aims to analyse the evolving approaches of EU external policies dealing with emerging challenges such as climate change and the need for a green transition.

To this, our panel adds an understanding of recent inter-institutional dynamics with both the European Parliament and the European Commission trying to renew their approaches of the EU external actorness. The papers on this panel look at the composition of these different EU institutions and their negotiations of external “actorness”, particularly in relation to the EU contribution to global governance efforts.

This article sets the stage for the panel and provides insights on what is the common research topic of the different papers presented on the panel: how and if we can talk about the EU as a global governance actor, and what is the meaning of the nascent nature of the EU in its efforts to participating to global governance. While still a relatively new research agenda from a policy and governance angle, looking at the EU and the complexity of its global presence leads to two main questions. One that concerns the analytical challenge of defining the object of study and another one that follows from the first one and relates to how to study the EU global presence from a methodological perspective.

The article proposes to attempt answering the first question by looking at existing research analysing the different forms of agency through which the EU global policies are developed (agency within the EU institutions, in the interaction between the EU and its Member States, and between the EU and third actors such as non-EU countries and other international organisations). As a consequence, the article provides a scoping study that aims to identify gaps in the existing literature while looking at the agency-structure nexus in the EU global governance efforts. Through this, the article is proposed with the ambition of establishing an updated research agenda on EU global governance and its challenges.

The second question is answered through a methodological approach on how to study the EU as a global governance actor. Once the object of study has been established, the article proposes that methodologically we need to acknowledge the importance of considering the complexity of the EU as a policy system. That leads into unpacking the elements of such a system, talking about the institutional feedback loops coming from both the inside and the outside policy environment, the related unintended consequences and the implications for the actors that get to contribute to the adaptability of the system.

Recent studies have examined how populist Western (Chryssogelos 2020) and non-Western actors (Destradi et al. 2022) politicise the norms and the agency behind them by making them the object of political conflict, including the contestation of the international liberal order. Scholars of EU integration too became increasingly interested in studying politicization. Initially, they focused on how integration is politicized from the inside by the Member States (Hix 2006) as a Eurosceptic reaction against the perceived technocratic content of EU policies (Hutter and Kriesi 2019; Hoeglinger 2016; De Wilde and Zürn 2012) and as the consequence of a “constraining dissensus” about the EU itself (Hooghe and Marks,2008; 2004). Other scholars concluded that the EU’s external relations can also become the target of political conflicts. While most authors have studied the politicization of EU’s external relations within and among the Member States (Barbe et al. 2016; Hebel and Lenz 2015; Jorgensen 2013) or as a reaction coming from non-EU actors (Young 2016; Smith 2011), less attention has been devoted to the politics of EU’s external relations inside EU institutions (Peterson 1995), with a few exceptions related to the European Parliament (De Wilde et al. 2016; Stavridis and Irrera 2015).

In this study, we propose to fill in this gap by exploring how international development cooperation policies can become politicized within a technocratic institution, such as the European Commission. Our focus is on the Global Gateway Initiative, launched by the Commission in 2021. The goal is to shed light on institutional dynamics within the Commission looking at how agents within this institution have conceived its international actorness. More specifically, we develop a reading based on complexity and looking at the European Commission´s contributions to global governance efforts, aiming to understand if new feedback loops have been created. That is, if interaction effects between actors within its policy system, between these actors and third actors in the broader policy environment, and between actors and their institutional setting have led to related policy norms becoming more salient. Subsequently, we aim to understand if the EU institutions have become adaptive actors and through which institutional mechanisms. We also look at actor expansion as one of the mechanisms, and at how and if these adaptive efforts have led to unintended consequences such as polarisation.

Despite the considerable flow of published material on external relations of the European Union and the European Parliament, it is indeed worth pointing out that only rarely previous studies have focused on the European Parliament and its Foreign Policy, notably Gaja (1980), Weiler (1980), Fontaine (1984), Lodge (1988), Penders (1988), Neunreither (1990), Elles, J. (1990), Millar (1991), Monar (1993), Prout (1992, 1993, 1994), Viola (2000, 2003, 2019) Stavridis and Irrera (2015) and Dupagny (1992) and two edited books by Barbé. By looking more widely at parliamentary diplomacy, Raube et al. (2019) have also addressed the role of the European Parliament in foreign policy.

The aim of this paper is therefore to contribute to enlarging the debate by launching an overall discussion, open to academics and practitioners, on the European Parliament’s involvement in foreign affairs. More specifically, this paper will look at the European Union’s stance toward the-Ukrainian crisis by analysing the role played by this institution in the different phases of the crisis. In unveiling the parliamentary multi-faceted view of this event, reference is also made to the positions taken by constituent political groups. The following questions will be addressed: has the European Parliament sought to define and shape a common foreign policy with respect to the Ukrainian crisis? Has the European Parliament managed to overcome divisions among its members in order to achieve a unitary stance vis-à-vis this question?

Finally, we will attempt to assess whether this crisis has marked a milestone for the European Parliament to become a genuine actor on the international stage.

Land is experienced differently by different groups of people. It can be a source of food, a place to work, an alienable commodity or an object of taxation (Li 2014). In the global scramble for resources and investment opportunities, land also becomes something to international institutions. In the context of the transformation of agriculture and resource extraction sites, the involvement of European Union (EU) financial and political institutions in land and resource governance increases as well. This can be observed in the Global Gateway Initiative, strategic independence discourses and a focus on resource investment policies. With regards to land “on the move” (Lazić/Kušić 2022), land frequently becomes an object of all shades of external governance. While many authors have focused on how land is conceptualized by those who lose it, less research has focused on how it is regarded by powerful actors who govern it, such as the EU.

In this paper, we focus particularly on the EU’s external land politics, that is in its foreign policy, European neighbourhood approach, and accession processes. But how do these institutions themselves conceptualise this object of external governance? In turn, how do these imaginaries influence the way land is governed by these institutions? In this paper, we attempt to answer these questions by analysing official documents, speeches and other material that discusses land governance/policies, connecting them to political plans and outcomes in third countries. We analyse land-related statements by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) as well as the European Commission and the European Council as case studies. We show that these different EU institutions work with contradictory imaginaries of land. This finding can partly explain erratic policies in regard to land and resource governance in third countries. Analysing these contradictions in further depth, our research adds to the complexity of EU external actorness by showing that the EU can rarely be conceptualised as a single coherent actor but needs to be acknowledged as a) a complex political system that nevertheless b) steers and prefigures the conduct of others.

For several years now, the European Union has sought to be an international leader in environmental matters. While at international level this action has largely focused on the fight against climate change, it now covers all environmental issues (protection of species, fight against illegal logging, protection of human health, etc.). The enforcement of this international action, especially in environmental matters, is an opportunity for the European Union to promote certain standards related to the functioning of the State, whose compliance is often a condition for access to the European market. The legitimacy of the European Union imposing such standards has been widely discussed, mainly concerning the consequences of such an approach for partner states. A less explored issue is the impact of free trade agreements on the European environmental standards.

In recent years, the European Union has entered into an increasing number of such agreements (with Canada, Mercosur, Japan, New Zealand, etc.). Although these agreements are primarily trade agreements, signed and ratified on the ground of the common commercial policy, their environmental dimension remains significant. Access to the European market is conditional on compliance with a certain number of environmental standards, without however guaranteeing a perfect match with existing European legislation. The question of compatibility is determined by ad hoc technical bodies provided for in the free-trade agreements.

Limited attention is paid to this process. Considered a technical matter, it is overseen by the Commission, whose role is central. Yet its political dimension cannot be ignored. Indeed, this assessment is often closely linked to the prevention and precautionary principles, which have a strong political dimension, as they determine in particular the level of risk acceptable to the society. In addition, this process raises many questions from the public, who do not understand the discrepancy between certain standards applicable to imported products and products produced in the European Union. In addition, the significant role of the Commission means that political control is sidelined, which may contribute to an increasing level of mistrust in the legitimacy of the European Union's free trade policy.

The aim of this paper is therefore to examine the effects of increased politicisation of these processes, and the ways in which this might be addressed, both in terms of participation and control. Could increased intervention by the European Parliament be considered sufficient? Should the level of involvement at national level be strengthened? More original players enter the game.