Draft version. Please do not cite without permission of author(s).

EUROPEAN DIPLOMACY POST-WESTPHALIA

Editors JOZEF BÁTORA and DAVID SPENCE

Chapter 11: Towards an EU Consular Policy?

Ana Mar Fernández Pasarín, Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science and

Public Law, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

Introduction1

In recent times, EU consular policy has caught the attention of an increasing number

of scholars, whose work focuses on the institutional deployment of European diplomacy

(Balfour and Raik, 2013; Boniface and Wesseling, 2011; Hobolth 2011; Raik, 2013;

Saliceti, 2011; Touzé, 2011; Wessel and Van Vooren, 2013; Wouters et al. 2013). The

expectations surrounding the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and

the enforcement of new principles and legal provisions in the Treaty of Lisbon as regards

European Union (EU) citizens’ protection and assistance abroad (Art.3 (5) TEU and Art. 23

TFEU) as well as European solidarity (Art.222 Title VII TFEU) have contributed

decisively to boosting interest in a domain, traditionally considered the parent pauvre of

inter-state diplomacy. Today, ‘diplomacy for people’ (Melissen and Okano-Heijmans,

2006), has acquired increasing recognition owing in large part to the effects of

1 The author is grateful to the members of the consular crisis management division of the EEAS for their valuable help.

2

globalization, critical international events and resulting EU pressure for joint actions

(Melissen and Fernández Pasarín 2011). This chapter contributes to existing research on

the development of EU consular policy as an increasingly prioritized issue area both for

Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and European Union institutions. It examines the most

important dimensions of this emerging policy area and reviews the relevant policy

instruments in light of broader developments in EU diplomatic practice and representation

over the last decade, in particular since implementation of the Lisbon Treaty.

The main thrust of the chapter focuses on the view that consular policy is a key

factor in assessing both the degree of innovation and resilience of national diplomacies in

the face of emergence of a distinctly European diplomatic order. While the field of visa

diplomacy exemplifies the consolidation of a European approach to the management of

consular affairs overseas, analysis of the consular protection and assistance regime reflects

a much more nuanced view. In this area, despite significant institutional innovations since

2010, the ‘dream’ of EU external representation unification (Wessel and Van Vooren,

2013) remains a distant prospect. The chapter is divided into three parts: an overview of

the main dimensions and drivers of EU consular policy, the historical path of consular

policy in EU visa diplomacy and the consular protection and assistance regime - with

special emphasis on the political and institutional settings introduced by the Lisbon Treaty.

The chapter concludes with some remarks on the challenges underlying further progress in

the construction of a harmonised administrative consular sphere abroad reflecting the needs

of EU societal security.

3

I. Consular affairs as an issue area for national diplomacy

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 (Art.5) foresees

management of consular affairs encompassing various three main categories of functions.

First, are tasks similar to those performed by diplomatic representations such as consular

protection, the promotion of consular relations or informative duties. Second is the consular

assistance function. This consists of assisting nationals abroad in cases of serious

difficulties (incarceration, illness or death) of individuals requiring urgent administrative

responses, such as the organization of evacuation or repatriation. Finally, other aspects of

the consular dimension of diplomacy include civil law functions (notary and civil register

duties), the control of maritime and aerial navigation, international judicial co-operation or

the extension of visas. In short, within MFAs, consular affairs and, in particular, consular

diplomacy deal with two sets of events: situations in which states’ own citizens need

documents, protection and assistance in differing situations while resident abroad or in

transit and situations in which foreign citizens need visas to enter a country. Delivering

consular services therefore involves different issue areas, including cementing relations

with a diaspora, filtering migration, providing information and assistance to citizens

working or travelling abroad or managing emergency situations. Traditionally, exercising

these routine or emergency functions has been considered a basic pillar of state sovereignty,

i.e. the projection of the interests of a legal community beyond states’ own borders

(Fernández Pasarín, 2008).

4

Since the latter half of the twentieth century, transboundary and overlapping

processes such as globalization, the increase in illegal migratory flows, large scale disasters

and the spread of international terrorism have begun to question this monopolistic view of

the exercise of consular authority as a function of the national state. The emergence of

global threats with catastrophic potential, disregarding geographical and functional borders

and, drastically modifying the map of world risk has created a new awareness among

nation-states of the need to build effective transnational systems to manage new and

complex security problems (Boin and Rhinard 2008). Missiroli and Rhinard point out that

‘threats […] [were] not ‘new’ per se but what makes them novel is the context in which

they now strike. Closely-linked and interconnected societies exacerbate vulnerabilities and

make such threats difficult to manage’ (1997, p.23).

II EU societal security as a driver of EU Consular affairs

Although often unnoticed or at least not brought to public attention, the emergence

and development of EU consular policy, its nature, priorities and operational modalities,

must be interpreted in light of the logics of securitization in the new European agenda. In

particular, two key policy areas since the mid-1990s demonstrate growing perception of a

need for policy at EU level: the integrated management of external borders in the field of

Justice and Home affairs and the protection and assistance regime provided to European

citizens in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). In both

cases, the concept of European citizenship introduced in the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht was

central. In both cases the main incentive of national governments to engage in power-

sharing and mutual co-operation in the consular domain has been strongly conditioned by

transboundary crises and driven by ‘EU societal security’ concerns (Boin et al. 2007).

5

Conceived as a ‘policy tool of securitization’ (Balzacq 2008), consular policy and, in

particular, local consular cooperation (that is, the type of cooperation established between

external administrations of Member States and EU Delegations (EUDEL) situated outside

EU territory), is an expression of European efforts towards implementation of multilateral

solutions enhancing Member States’ prevention, response and repair capacities in the

context of increasing transnational challenges, open societies and economic crises

involving significant efforts at cost-reductions in the representative domain (see Balfour

and Raik, 2013).

In sequential terms, the development of EU consular policy must first be placed

within the context of the gradual configuration of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

in Europe and its external ramifications (Fernández Pasarín, 2009). Since the

implementation of the common visa policy and the incorporation of the Schengen

agreements into the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, the harmonization of consular rules and

procedures concerning the extension of short-term visas has been conceived as a policy

instrument to control growing illegal migratory flows from outside the EU and fight

international terrorism, for which integrated management of border control was

increasingly deemed helpful. On the other hand, the Europeanization of consular affairs

became considered a corollary of the common foreign and security policy. It was viewed as

an integral part of the protection and assistance regime for European citizens abroad. Thus,

this latter domain and especially the management of collective emergency situations such

as man-made or natural disasters have become a major preoccupation of national consular

6

departments and the Consular Division of the EEAS. The next two sections situate the legal

development and main characteristics of these two dimensions of consular policy.

III. Consular policy at the service of visa diplomacy in the EU

The institutionalization of an EU consular policy in the field of visa diplomacy has

been a gradual process. Its development has been heavily determined by the international

context, not least the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Its beginnings were modest, with

the adoption of a simple recommendation by the Council of the EU in March 1996 calling

for the creation of cooperation agreements between national consular services present in the

third countries. The aim was to strengthen security within the EU in general terms, but

more specifically to fight illegal immigration.2 Consular cooperation was essentially

conceived as an information system: exchange of data over the criteria used for issuing the

Schengen visa - maximum of three months per six-month period; verification of the

veracity of applications and prevention of simultaneous or successive applications (referred

to as ‘Visa shopping’). EU border control is a complex set of coordinated norms and

administrative practices partially based on common criteria (Costello, 2006, p.300). The

particularity of local consular cooperation, in comparison with the other mechanisms aimed

at strengthening the integrated control of the EU’s external borders, resides in the fact that

the former is the only instrument of convergence involving a direct action on the territory

of a third country (Fernández Pasarín, 2009).

2 Council of the EU (1996). Recommendation of the 4th March 1996 relating to “Local consular cooperation regarding visas”. Official Journal C 080, 18 March.

7

In 2002, these initial recommendations were reinforced and integrated into Chapter

VIII of the Common Consular Instructions (CCI), a framework document addressed to the

consulates and consular sections of diplomatic missions, setting out the norms and

guidelines in force regarding the granting of visas.3 This document, adopted in the

aftermath of 9/11, substantially elevated the importance of local consular cooperation,

reflecting a new awareness among Member States of the added value of developing stable

channels of administrative cooperation in third countries as a means of preventing illegal

immigration and terrorism. Tellingly enough, the CCI not only called for the establishment

of common criteria for the processing of applications and the exchange of information

about potential networks of illegal immigration. It also provided for a quarterly exchange of

data on visas issued and applications rejected, and for the Council presidency to coordinate

and monitor the practical implementation of these measures.

The willingness to reinforce the security of the EU’s external borders and, in

particular, to strengthen information exchange as an instrument of securitization has been

the main rationale behind this upgrading of local consular cooperation in the field of visas.

In February 2003, for instance, the Council published an exhaustive catalogue aimed at

diplomatic missions and consular offices. It contained concrete recommendations for the

effective implementation of the Schengen acquis and, in particular, the granting of visas.

Highly specific measures covered issues such as the security of consulate buildings, the

completion of forms, interviewing applicants, the detection of forged documents, the

3 Council of the EU (2002a), Common Consular Instruction, Official Journal C 313, 16 December.

8

functioning of the archive system and the training of personnel in information technology.4

Some months later, the Council adopted a new guide to best practice regarding the

evaluation of risks associated with migration. The main methods to achieve objectives

highlighted focused on comparison of the reasons for visa refusal, and the drawing up of a

detailed and harmonized list of requirements for obtaining a common visa. In addition, the

Council approved the creation of a group of experts tasked with evaluating implementation

of coordination mechanisms between consulates in third countries. (Fernández Pasarín,

2008).5 In the same year the French government proposed the “possibility for a Member

State to be represented in a third country by another Member State even when it is already

represented in that third country”. Visas would be issued by the ‘Dominant Consulate’

(State) in a given region, assessed by virtue of the number of applications normally dealt

with or historic ties maintained with the host country6. In October 2004, this initiative

materialized in the introduction of a new appendix in the Common Consular Instruction

(Appendix 18), in which the bases for the delegation of representative rights were specified,

along with a geographical table of responsibility for the issuing of common visas.7 Hobolth

has shown that this type of bilateral agreement on consular cooperation, which is based on

widespread practice among Commonwealth States, extended significantly among EU

member states, especially the smaller ones (Benelux, Baltic and Central and Eastern

countries) between 2005 and 2010, with France and Germany at the center of this network

4Council of the EU (2003a), Catalogue of recommendations for the correct application of the Schengen acquis and best practices: Issuing of visa, Doc. Nº 6183/03, SCH-EVAL 7, VISA 27, COMIX 83, Brussels, 7 February. 5Council of the EU (2003b), Improving the efficiency of an intensifying consular cooperation between the Member States in third countries, Doc. Nº 10529/03, VISA 106, COMIX 390, Brussels, 16 June. 6 Council of the EU (2003c), Initiative of the French Republic with a view to the adoption of a Council Decision amending point 1.2 of Part II of the Common Consular Instructions and drawing up a new Annex thereto, Doc. Nº 14701/03, VISA 184, COMIX 682 OC 710, Brussels, 11 December. 7 Council of the EU (2004), Common Consular Instruction, Annex 18, Doc. 11272/2/04 REV 2, 11 October.

9

of delegated representation for visa delivery abroad (Hobolth, 2011; see also Boniface and

Wesseling 2011).

More recently, in 2006 and 2008, two further steps to intensify local consular co-

operation were taken. The first allowed for the systematic participation of the representative

of the Delegations of the Commission in meetings of local consular co-operation8, while

the second was the adoption of the Visa Information System (VIS) Regulation, a refined

and unified procedure for the exchange of visa data (applications, decisions on extensions,

revocations and annulments) between the member states and the associated countries

applying the common visa policy.9 The first region selected to start operations of the VIS

was North Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia). This was

followed by the Near East (Israel, Jordan, the Lebanon and Syria) and the Gulf region

(Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait)10.

Yet, the most relevant qualitative shift in the harmonization of consular practices

overseas took place in 2009 with the legislative unification of all existing provisions

concerning procedures and conditions for the issue of short-stay visas and transit visas

through the territories of Member States and the associated states applying the Schengen

acquis in full (CCI, VIS Regulation and the Schengen Borders Code) in the ‘Community

8 Doc.10529/03 VISA 106 COMIX 390, 4-5 December 2006. 9 Regulation (EC) 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation’, Official Journal of the EU, L 218/60, Brussels, 13 August. 10 Commission Decision of 30 November 2009 determining the first regions for the start of operations of the Visa Information System (VIS).

10

Code on Visas’ or ‘Visa Code.11 This regulation came into force in April 2010. It applies to

nationals of third countries who must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external

borders of the EU, as listed in Regulation (EC) Nº539/2001 and periodically amended since

then12. It also includes a list of third countries whose nationals are required to hold an

airport transit visa when passing through the international transit areas of Member States’

airports. The Visa Code incorporates the idea that Member States may establish bilateral

arrangements for representing each other to issue visas or that they may cooperate through

the creation of joint or common applications centers (bilateral, multilateral, outsourced or

under the EU umbrella, as for instance in Moldova since 2007). This practice, considered

beneficial from the standpoint of both efficiency, economic and security criteria, has been

substantially extended over the last years.

IV. Consular protection and assistance for EU citizens: the bastion of Westphalian diplomacy

In addition to the common visa policy, local consular cooperation has become a

growing priority of the CFSP. Very summarily defined and practically unknown to the

general public in its initial stages, the EU regime of consular protection and assistance

gained political saliency under the effect of a series of dramatic large-scale events, such as

the tsunami of South-East Asia in 2004, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the crisis in Lebanon in

2006, the earthquake in Haiti in 2011 and Japan’s nuclear disaster in 2011. The conflicts in

Libya, Egypt and Syria after the democratic uprisings also made European states aware of

11 European Parliament and Council of the EU Regulation (EC) Nº810/2009 of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), Official Journal of the EU, L 243/1, 15 September 2009. 12 Amendments: Regulation (EC) 2414/2001, R (EC) 851/2005, R (EC) 1932/2006 and R (EC) 1211/2010.

11

the growing vulnerability of citizens in the face of unpredictable factors with potentially

massive consequences.

In the European Union, a regulation in 1992 covered consular assistance and protection

and diplomatic protection. These were conceived as corollaries of European citizenship,

following acknowledgement in the Maastricht Treaty that stipulated in Article 20 that all

citizens of the European Community when in third countries in which their own State is not

represented, have the right to be offered diplomatic and consular protection by other

Member States. Of course, the crisis situations of recent years exposed the shortcomings of

a system designed essentially to cope with individual situations, but of necessity relevant in

a more collective sense. In the case of the 2004 South-East Asia tsunami, the consular and

diplomatic personnel of the Member States present on the ground were totally

overwhelmed by the magnitude of the needs both of their own citizens and of those of the

Member States with no diplomatic representation in the countries of the region; some of

them habitual tourist destinations, such as Thailand, Madagascar and Indonesia (Fernández

Pasarín, 2008; Porzio, 2008).13  

Based on the number of journeys made annually by EU citizens to third countries, the

Commission estimated the number of "unrepresented" EU citizens travelling abroad

annually to be at least 7 million in 2007.14 Eurostat data revealed that the number of  trips  

13 In 2007 the European Commission pointed out that there were only three countries where all Member States are represented (EU-27); 18 countries in which no Member State is represented; 17 countries in which only one Member State is represented and 11 countries in which two Member States are represented. Commission of the European Communities (2007) ‘Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Effective consular protection in third countries. The contribution of the EU. Action Plan 2007-2009’, Brussels, 5 December, COM(2007) 767 Final. 14 European Commission (2007) 767 Final, Op. Cit.

12

EU citizens take to third countries increased from over 80 million in 2005 to over 90

million trips in 2008.15

In recent years, this crisis awareness has triggered an intense debate between the

Member States and the Commission over the most suitable institutional design for EU

consular cooperation. A key issue has been whether Member States or the Commission

would manage, coordinate and represent local consular cooperation in times of crisis.16

Since 2000, a series of non-binding guidelines had been adopted with the aim of enhancing

overseas inter-administrative mechanisms in the prevention and management of crisis

situations.17 Initially, these translated into the systematization of joint evaluations of local

political situations, exchange of information and reinforced cooperation in the

implementation of the 1995 decision on the protection of European citizens. In 2006, the

pressure of events led to the adoption of new procedures to strengthen consular

collaboration: deployment of common action protocols in civil protection operations;

publication of joint declarations and press communications by the Council Presidency and

15 European Commission (2011) ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Consular protection for EU citizens in third countries: State of play and way forward’ COM (2011) 149 final, Brussels, 23 March. 16 See for instance, Commission of the European Communities (2006b), Communication to the European Council ‘A citizens agenda’ (COM (2006) 211 final), 10 May; Commission of the European Communities (2006a), Barnier Report ‘For a European civil protection force: Europe aid’, 9 May; Council of the EU (2006a), ‘Closer consular cooperation’, Doc. 16231/06, December. See Green Paper on Consular and Diplomatic Protection, COM (2006c) 712 final, 28 November 2006. 17 Council of the EU (2000) ‘Guidelines on cooperation between Member States’ missions and Commission delegations in third countries and within international organisations in CFSP matters’ (Doc. 12094/00); Council of the EU (2001) ‘Guidelines on consular protection of EU citizens in the event of a crisis in third countries’ (Doc. 7562/01); Council of the EU (2003d) ‘Guidelines on consular protection of EU citizens in the event of a crisis in third countries’ (Doc. 15754/03); Council of the EU (2006b) ‘Guidelines on consular protection of EU citizens in third countries’ (Doc. 10109/2/06 REV 2).

13

the Commission; logistic and human support of the then 132 Commission delegations in the

third countries in the enforcement of evacuation plans and the drawing up of emergency

plans. Where necessary, the delegations also had to provide assistance to the Council

presidency in the theatre of operations by sending Commission officials into crisis areas or

by coordinating information and call centers (Fernández Pasarín 2011). By way of example,

during the Gaza crisis in January 2009, 100 people were evacuated in armored buses with

EU Commission delegation support. Further, the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, mainly

designed to be activated within EU borders, and which operates under the lead of the

Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) based in the Commission in Brussels, has also

served consulates in third countries since November 2007. After the Mumbai terrorist

attack in November 2008, a Swedish Medevac airplane, co-financed by the Commission

through the MIC, evacuated six wounded Europeans. In 2011, the MIC was also activated

during the Libyan crisis to support local consular authorities and channel information to

and from transport providers. Hungary made an aircraft available to evacuate 29

Romanians, 27 Hungarians, 20 Bulgarians, 8 Germans, 6 Czechs and 6 EU and non-EU

nationals from Tripoli, with the MIC co-financing the operation.18

While significant, this increasing involvement of the Commission delegations in

supporting consular protection and assistance overseas did not impede strictly

intergovernmental cooperation. Illustratively, in 2007, France and the UK defended a

model of consular cooperation based on classic horizontal cooperation led by the ‘Lead

State’19, designated irrespective of the country holding the Council presidency and

responsible for the evacuation of all Union citizens to a safe place. That same year, the 18 European Commission (2011), Op. Cit., p.8. 19 Council of the EU (2007), ‘Lead State Concept’, Doc. 10715/07.

14

Member States launched a pilot project in Cairo, aimed at testing the viability of the “Lead

State” concept in the field. Clearly, while Member States were increasingly willing to

coordinate civil protection and assistance operations within a European framework, they

were not however inclined fully to change the intergovernmental and voluntary nature of

such cooperation (Ekengren et al. 2006). In this sense, the reiterated proposals of the

Commission, during the years 2000-2006, to create true Euroconsulates20 in the long-term,

operating under the guardianship of its overseas delegations (justified by the fact that the

Commission has more external delegations than many of the Member States) remained a

dead letter.21 Actually the proposals were strongly criticized at the time by some

governments, notably France, the UK and Portugal. The argument turned on the issue of the

Commission’s legal mandate for external representation, which detractors of the proposals

believed limited in law.22

Despite the introduction of significant novelties in the domain of the external

representation of the EU, the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009 did

not fundamentally alter this reality, despite a series of potential catalysts for major legal,

political and institutional innovations, such as the transformation of the EU into a subject of

international law (see Wessel and Van Vooren, chapter X) the general role for the EU

(Art.23) in the regime of consular protection and assistance (ex-Art. 20 TEU; also included

in Art.46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU); the introduction of a new

solidarity clause between Member States (Art. 222 TFEU); the appointment of a full-time

20 Commission of the European Communities (2006b), “Green Paper on Diplomatic and Consular Protection”, November 2006 (COM (2006) 712 final). 21 Interview, General Secretariat of the EU Council, Brussels, 13 November 2007. 22 Summary Report of Public Hearing on the Green Paper on Diplomatic and Consular Protection, 2007, p.5.

15

High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy steering the

Foreign Affairs Council of the EU; the deployment of the EEAS (with its consular unit for

the coordination and management of crisis situations) and, finally, the transformation of the

former delegations of the Commission into the EU delegations

These new institutional settings and, in particular, the development of the EU into a

subject of international law, have created the formal conditions for the implementation of

structural changes in the ways consular diplomacy works at EU level and, as a

consequence, in the workings of Member State MFAs with potential impact on the

management of consular affairs. Reconceptualising the EU as a potential provider of

protection and assistance in third countries through the lead of the (supranational) High

Representative and her network of 139 diplomatic delegations transforms the bases on

which consular policy has been evolving. The intensification of consular cooperation under

the coordinating umbrella of the Commission and the consular division of the EEAS (sub-

unit of the Crisis Response and Operational Coordination Department-CROC) has become

significant. For instance, Action Plan 2007-2009 of the Commission and the work

undertaken by the EEAS with the direct support of the High Representative (Interview

EEAS, Brussels, 14 June 2013) and several concrete day-to-day initiatives have contributed

to a Europeanised consular policy, including the training of consular officials to ensure

common understanding and implementation of consular policy; the design and

dissemination of information campaigns to EU citizens about their rights to protection and

assistance; the creation of an EU website on consular protection with travel advice, the

launching of the secure CoOL (consular-on-line) website for information sharing by EU

consular authorities, the elaboration of EU joint crisis procedures and pilot exercises in

16

third countries in collaboration with EU delegations. In May 2012, the Member States and

the EU delegation in Beijing adopted a non-paper entitled ‘EU Joint Crisis Plan’. This was

designed to ensure a common and coordinated response in the event of a crisis in China.

According to plan, the EUDEL would act as Information Distribution Point (IDP) for the

diplomatic representation of Member States in Beijing. In 2013, an exercise conducted by

the EEAS and led by the CROC was carried out on the ground to test the effective

implantation of this contingency crisis plan in Beijing.

The examples reveal that EU consular policy exists and is thought to provide added

value. In 2011, several Member States including France, the initiator and most requested

country as ‘Lead state’, produced a non-paper demanding the strengthening of EEAS

capabilities and competences in order to provide Member States with operational support in

large-scale threat situations (Non-paper 2011). Increasingly aware of the added value of

joint strategies to cope with collective security challenges, especially at a time of budget

austerity, Member States have been increasingly prone to rely on EU tools to share the

burden of crisis responses.

Conclusion

It would be premature to conclude that the growing empowerment of the EU and its

advocacy of extended competences in the consular domain represent part of a paradigmatic

shift in the practice of diplomacy. So far, Balfour and Raik argue, ‘member states have

focused on cost-saving solutions based on functional considerations rather than on a strong

17

belief in Europe as a provider of protection and assistance’ (Balfour and Raik 2013, p.19).

Despite the undeniable advances in EU consular policy since 2010, the delegation of

consular functions to EU actors in the field of protection and assistance remains politically

sensitive, in particular in light of public opinion (Wouters et al. 2013, p.15). EU consular

activity is still considered a subsidiary formula; a policy instrument supporting but not

replacing that of the Member States in exceptional, collective and temporary circumstances

of civilian crisis management operations.

Thus, despite efforts towards simplification, the organization of power and the

distribution of competences in the European Union are still extremely complex and not

easily comparable to the Westphalian model. The EU provides a composite image

characterized by the enmeshment of roles and identities. Beyond the debate on the degree

of maintenance or, on the contrary, the dilution of the intergovernmentalism of the

emerging system, the new European diplomatic order remains characterized by the co-

existence of contradictory forces and permanent fluctuation between European initiatives

and national conjecture (Maguer 2007). The constant oscillation resulting from the

‘interstitial’ character of the EEAS (Bátora 2013) underlines the fact that although there is

no doubt that Member States are increasingly aware of the added value of developing

schemes of collective governance in the external domain, they remain nonetheless reluctant

to delegate more powers in sensitive areas for State legitimacy such who provides the

leadership of EU diplomacy.

Consular affairs are a case in point. The main feature of the EU institutional design

of EU consular policy is its dual configuration: a system driven simultaneously by the

18

willingness of Member States to converge within the framework of the Union so as to

maximize their problem-solving capacity, and the wish to maintain this cooperation within

an intergovernmental governance framework preserving a Westphalian public order legacy.

In the EU, the management of consular affairs may no longer bear resemblance to the old

diplomatic system of the “Concert of Nations” from which it was initially derived, but it

would be excessive to consider it as an already changed paradigm -supranational

diplomacy.

References Balfour, R. and Raik, K. (eds) (2013) ‘The European External Action Service and National Diplomacies’, EPC Issue Paper, nº73. Balzacq, T. (2008) ‘The Policy Tools of Securitization: Information Exchange, EU Foreign and Interior Policies’, Journal of Common Market Studies 46(1): 75-100. Bátora, J. (2013) ‘The ‘Mitrailleuse Effect’: The EEAS as an Interstitial Organization and the Dynamics of Innovation in Diplomacy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(4):598–613 Boin at al. (2007) ‘Building societal security in Europe: The EU’s role in managing emergencies’, European Policy Centre Working Paper, nº27. Boin, A. and Rhinard, M. (2008) ‘Managing transboundary crises: What role for the European Union?’, International Studies Review, 10: 1-26. Commission of the European Communities (2006a) ‘Barnier Report ‘For a European civil protection force: Europe aid’, Brussels, 9 May. Commission of the European Communities (2006b) ‘Communication to the European Council ‘A citizens agenda’, COM (2006) 211 Final, Brussels, 10 May. Commission of the European Communities (2006c) ‘Green Paper on Consular and Diplomatic Protection’, COM (2006)712 Final, Brussels, 28 November. Commission of the European Communities (2007) ‘Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee

19

of the Regions: Effective consular protection in third countries. The contribution of the EU. Action Plan 2007-2009’, COM(2007) 767 Final, Brussels, 5 December.

Commission of the European Communities (2010) ‘Decision of the Commission of 30 November 2009 determining the first regions for the start of operations of the Visa Information System (VIS)’, Official Journal of the EU, L23/62, 27 January.

Commission (2011) ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Consular protection for EU citizens in third countries: State f play and way forward’, COM (2011) 149 final, Brussels, 23 March. Costello, C. (2006) ‘Administrative Governance and the Europeanization of Asylum and Immigration Policy’ in H. Hofmann and A. Türk, A. (eds.), EU Administrative Governance (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northampton), pp.287-340 Council of the EU (1996) ‘Recommendation of the 4 March 1996 relating to “Local consular cooperation regarding visas’, Official Journal of the EU, C 080, 18 March. Council of the EU (2000) ‘Guidelines on cooperation between Member States’ missions and Commission delegations in third countries and within international organisations in CFSP matters’, Doc. 12094/00. Council of the EU (2001) ‘Guidelines on consular protection of EU citizens in the event of a crisis in third countries’, Doc. 7562/01. Council of the EU (2002) ‘Common Consular Instruction’, Official Journal of the EU, C 313, 16 December. Council of the EU (2003a) ‘Catalogue of recommendations for the correct application of the Schengen acquis and best practices: Issuing of visa’, Doc. Nº 6183/03, SCH-EVAL 7, VISA 27, COMIX 83, Brussels, 7 February. Council of the EU (2003b) ‘Improving the efficiency of an intensifying consular cooperation between the Member States in third countries’, Doc. Nº 10529/03, VISA 106, COMIX 390, Brussels, 16 June. Council of the EU (2003c) ‘Initiative of the French Republic with a view to the adoption of a Council Decision amending point 1.2 of Part II of the Common Consular Instructions and drawing up a new Annex thereto’, Doc. Nº 14701/03, VISA 184, COMIX 682 OC 710, Brussels, 11 December. Council of the EU (2003d) ‘Guidelines on consular protection of EU citizens in the event of a crisis in third countries’, Doc. 15754/03.

20

Council of the EU (2004), Common Consular Instruction, Annex 18, Doc. 11272/2/04 REV 2, 11 October. Council of the EU (2006a), ‘Closer consular cooperation’, Doc. 16231/06, December. Council of the EU (2006b) ‘Guidelines on consular protection of EU citizens in third countries’, Doc. 10109/2/06 REV 2. Council of the EU (2007), ‘Lead State Concept’, Doc. 10715/07. Duke, S. ‘Providing for European-Level Diplomacy after Lisbon: The Case of the European External Action Service’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 4, 2009, p.211. Ekengren, M.; Matzén, N., Rhinard, M. and M. Svantesson, M. (2006) ‘Solidarity or Sovereignty? EU Cooperation in Civil Protection’, Journal of European Integration, 28 (5): 457-476. European Parliament and the Council (2008) ‘Regulation (EC) 767/2008 of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation)’, Official Journal of the EU, L 218/60, Brussels, 13 August. European Parliament and Council of the EU (2009) ‘Regulation (EC) Nº810/2009 of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), Official Journal of the EU, L 243/1, 15 September. European Union (2010) ‘Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the EU’, Official Journal of the EU, 2010/C83/01, Brussels, 30 March. Fernández Pasarín, A. (2008) ‘Consular affairs in the EU: Visa policy as a catalyst for integration?’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 3(1):21-35. Fernández Pasarín, A. (2009) ‘Local consular co-operation: Administering EU internal security overseas’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(4): 591-606. Fernández Pasarín, A. (2011) ‘Consular affairs in an integrated Europe’, in Melissen, J. and Fernández, A. (eds.) Consular affairs and diplomacy (Martinus Nijhof: Leiden, Boston),pp. Heijmans, M. and Melissen, J. ‘The Rising Challenge of Consular Affairs: Cinderella in the Limelight’, Clingendael CDSP Paper, June 2006. Hobolth, M. (2011) ‘European visa cooperation: interest politics and regional imagined commmunities’, LSE ‘Europe in Question’ Discussion Paper Series, Nº34. Maguer, A. ‘La sécurité en frontière intérieure, tentations européennes et réflexes nationaux’ (2007) 3, 23 Politique Européenne, pp.93-113.

21

Porzio, G. (2008) ‘Consular Assistance and Protection: An EU Perspective’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 3(1):.21-35 Raik, K. (2013) ‘Serving the citizens? Consular role of the EEAS grows in small steps’, EPC Policy Brief, April. Saliceti, A. (2011) 'The Protection of EU Citizens Abroad: Accountability, Rule of Law, Role of Consular and Diplomatic Services', European Public Law, 17(1): 91–109 Touzé, S. (2011) ‘Aspects récents (et choisis) de la protection consulaire des citoyens de l’Union européenne’, Revue des affaires européennes, 1: 79-86. Wessel, R. and Van Vooren, B. (2013) ‘The EEAS's diplomatic dreams and the reality of European and international law’, Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9): 1350-1367. Wouters, J., Duquet, S. and Meuwissen, K. (2013) ‘The European Union and Consular Law’, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies Working Paper, nº107, June. ‘Non-paper on the European External Action Service from the foreign ministers of Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland and Sweden’, 8 December 2011, available at http:// www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afet/dv/201/201203/ 20120321_nonpaperfms_en.pdf