The EU, migration and contestation: the UN Global Compact for Migration, from consensus to dissensus

The 2015 migration crisis has shaken the EU system to the point that no agreement on the matter was possible. In this line, it was decided to bring to the international level the need to agree on a migration norm: the UN Global Compact for Migration. This article analyses the EU and Member States dynamics of dissent vis-à-vis substantive and procedural norms. It shows the existence of four structural factors within EU foreign policy that enhances consensus. That is the existence of a common position on the matter, the expert culture constraining the behaviour of parties, the EU community of practices and the role of the chair. The presence of these factors explain why the EU contained Hungary’s objections to the Compact, but its absence also explains the domino effect triggered by the Austrian withdrawal. At the end, EU norms such as effective multilateralism and sincere cooperation were contested.This work was supported by the EU-NormCon research project (Normative contestation in Europe: Implications for the EU in a hanging global order) funded by the National R + D Plan of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant number CSO2016-79205-P), by the COST Action ENTER (EU Foreign Policy Facing New Realities, grant number CA17119), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology), and by the FPI Scholarship (grant number BES-2017-079692) funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness

EU foreign policy and norm contestation in an eroding western and Intra-EU liberal order

The idea of the European Union being increasingly contested, whether globally or at home, is a frequently reiterated notion. It is believed that such challenges to the European integration stem from a number of diverse but interlinked global and intra-EU crises that, combined, amount to the current ‘perfect storm’ affecting the EU and its foreign, security and defense policy. We will explore here how the EU is being put to the test in terms of the norms and fundamental values which guide its foreign policy. It is an important issue within the broader debates of the European crises, as such norm contestation may have a deeper structural and longer-term effect on the EU’s external action and its ‘resilience’ as an international actor. We employ insights from the norm contestation literature to scrutinize a number of the most important current challenges articulated against EU foreign policy norms in recent years, whether at the global, ‘glocal’ or intra-EU level.Elisabeth Johansson-Nogués wishes to acknowledge VISIONS (Visions and practices of geopolitics in the European Union and its neighborhood) funded by the National R+D Plan of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (CSO2017-82622-P). Martijn C. Vlaskamp thanks the Beatriu de Pinós postdoctoral program of the Government of Catalonia's Secretariat for Universities and Research (Ministry of Economy and Knowledge) for funding (Grant number: 2017-BP-152). Esther Barbé is grateful to the Catalan Agency for Management of University and Research Grants (AGAUR) for funds making this research possible (2017 SGR 693)

India’s ‘silent contestation’ of the EU’s perspective on local ownership

Local ownership has become a central theme in today’s discourse on peacebuilding, with the EU being very vocal in embracing the norm. On the surface, it thus seems that the EU is supported in its perspective on local ownership by the international community at large. Looking more closely at the discourse surrounding peacebuilding practices, it becomes however apparent, that local ownership remains contested, particularly among emerging countries such as India. The chapter, therefore, sets out to explore why and how India is contesting the EU on local ownership, and how far this impacts the legitimacy of the EU’s norm. Using document analysis on India and the EU’s speeches at the UN, as well as policy documents outlining their peacebuilding strategies, the chapter finds that while India is critical of the content of the norm and the degree of its institutionalization, it chooses more indirect modes of contestation, such as ‘silent contestation’. As a result, the European Union has not been receptive to India’s critique. This is amplified, as the EU has developed its perspective on local ownership among like-minded countries, within the OECD-DAC context and hence relies on internal legitimization of the norm