Contesting procedural norms: the impact of politicisation on European foreign policy cooperation

Ana E Juncos*, Karolina Pomorska

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)
77 Downloads (Pure)


While there is increasing evidence in the literature of politicisation in the area of European foreign policy, we know less about how this has affected the dynamics of cooperation among EU member states and, specifically, the procedural norms that govern this policy. This article is concerned with how politicisation and contestation manifest at the micro-level and how they might shape everyday EU foreign policy negotiations. It seeks to establish to what extent politicisation – resulting from the emergence of a new political cleavage centred around issues of identity and supranational integration – has driven normative contestation within EU foreign policy negotiations and whether this has led to the erosion of long-standing procedural norms in European foreign policy. Our findings suggest that despite CFSP Council committees being an institutional arena, characterised by intergovernmental, relatively insulated, and technical decision-making, current processes of politicisation linked to the rise of populism and the increasing transfer of authority to the EEAS have increased contestation of norms within this setting. However, procedural norms have remained relatively resilient to these challenges.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)367-384
Number of pages18
JournalEuropean Security
Issue number3
Early online date25 Aug 2021
Publication statusPublished - 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.


  • Contestation
  • politicisation
  • procedural norms
  • council
  • CFSP


Dive into the research topics of 'Contesting procedural norms: the impact of politicisation on European foreign policy cooperation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this