Guest pen | The EU’s foreign and security policy needs qualified majority decisions

of the EU foreign and security policy has been criticized for inefficiency, slow response and a jumble of political positions, but the views of the member states on the role of the EU have converged. Finland’s idea of ​​the EU as a security community is also supported.

The EU’s geopolitical and security political awakening requires the strengthening of foreign policy decision-making. Too often one or two member states have blocked or watered down an important foreign and security policy decision. Sometimes the underlying reasons or requirements are not even really related to the issue to be decided. The unanimity requirement leads to inefficiency and exposes member states to influence attempts by third countries.

of the EU the basic agreements enable the extension of qualified majority decision-making with a simple procedure. In the European Council, the member states can decide to switch to qualified majority decision-making in the common foreign and security policy in general or in a more limited way in its different areas, such as sanctions policy. However, many member states are skeptical about the reform, the implementation of which requires consensus.

Countries sympathetic to the expansion of the qualified majority should respond to the fear that the influence of an individual member state on foreign and security policy issues that are considered particularly important nationally will weaken.

In recent months, the creation of a safety net that takes national interests into account has been highlighted by a group of member states that have a positive attitude to the expansion of the qualified majority, in which Finland is also involved. The group was founded under the leadership of Germany by the foreign ministers of nine EU countries with a statement more than a year ago, and it now includes 12 countries. The group meets at the civil servant level, and its work is supported by an expert group consisting of researchers.

In the expert group, to which we belong, there has been talk about the hard core of the safety net, i.e. the emergency brake mechanism of the common foreign and security policy written into the EU’s founding treaties. Even in qualified majority decisions, member states can stop decision-making if the grounds are vital reasons related to national policy and notified to other member states.

Then the High Representative of the EU’s foreign and security policy must find a solution to the matter. If no solution is found, the member states can refer the matter to the European Council of EU leaders. The procedure makes it possible to evaluate the reasons given by the country that pulled the emergency brake, and it can be used to find a solution that takes into account the interest of both the country in question and the EU.

“

The procedure allows the emergency brake to be pulled.

In addition to this robust mechanism based on the treaties, the safety net could be strengthened by a political decision. Member states could establish a procedure with a lower threshold than the emergency brake, which would allow for an extension of time at the request of a member state and thus a more detailed joint assessment of the issue under consideration. The member states can also confirm their commitment to the EU Council’s established practice with a joint statement, according to which even in qualified majority decision-making, the starting point is to reach the widest possible consensus.

Member states can also emphasize the wider use of constructive abstention enabled by the treaties in foreign and security policy: a member state can abstain from voting and applying a decision without preventing it from occurring.

In common in foreign and security policy, the qualified majority should basically be applied in the promotion of the values ​​enshrined in the EU’s founding treaties. The right of veto should be waived at least in foreign policy positions and statements concerning human rights, democracy and the rule of law. In addition, the expansion of the qualified majority should be seriously considered, for example, in the EU’s sanctions policy and the promotion of cyber security.

Juha Jokela is program director at the Institute for Foreign Policy. Ramses A. Wessels is professor of European law at the University of Groningen.

Guest pens are speeches by experts that have been selected by the editorial board of HS to be published. Opinions expressed in guest pens are the authors’ own views, not HS’s positions. Writing instructions: www.hs.fi/vieraskyna/.