Perspectives of Further Institutional Development of the EU: High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security and EU Foreign Policy

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to provide an analytical framework on how the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereafter High Representative) can improve his/her functioning in promoting common policies among EU member states and institutions and what factors influence this process. The article seeks to provide an answer whether in the context of an actual institutional structure of EU High Representative is able to implement efficient common foreign policy.

After the WWII, European countries needed to create a new system which by reducing state sovereignty would deliberately delegate some of its parts to supranational bodies. As a result of these aspirations, in 1951, Treaty on the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was signed (Treaty of Rome establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, 1991). The rivals in the war, France and Germany, voluntarily transferred coal and steel industrial production to strategic common control. Since then, a unique and complex structure and the peculiarities of the functioning of EU bodies helped European integration make significant achievements. The failure of the EU Constitution initiative did not hold back EU member states from continuing their efforts on institutional reforms so as to achieve bigger efficiency, particularly in its foreign policy. Treaty of Lisbon has brought significant changes to the EU architecture. First of all, due to these reforms, the EU pillars system devised by Maastricht Treaty of 1991 was abolished (Treaty of Maastricht, 1992). Also, drastic changes were made to the EU’s external representation.

Summarising the history of formation of EU foreign policy institutions, it needs to be stated that EU’s complex history started with economic integration, and historically, all its member states relied on classical diplomacy to achieve their national foreign policy goals. Despite the institutional novelty of Lisbon Treaty, the High Representative acts in the circumstances where most of the national sovereign rights are with member states and decisions on foreign policy-related issues are taken by consensus.

This article provides an analysis not only of the evolution of the post of High Representative but also of the current state of matter with regards to its functioning. The research underlines that based on the new provisions of the Lisbon Treaty on High Representative, the EU has a big chance to strengthen its institutional structure with respect to its foreign policy. But unfortunately, so far, we have witnessed quite frequent rivalry between institutions than undertaking of concrete measures, which eventually leads to awkward situations within the external relations of the institutional framework. For instance, rivalry between the two presidents of the European Council and the EU Commission, Herman Van Rompuy and Jose Manuel Barroso, respectively, over the place of EU’s true leader on the international arena, led to the fact that the two didn’t share one aircraft on the way to summit in Russia. ¹ After the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty, different prognoses on the long awaited institutional reform were made. Unlike supporters of these reforms, sceptics envisaged the Treaty as a mere attempt to implement the provisions of the draft Constitution. Citizens of the EU member states were also very dubious of the document. Some EU officials admit that the Lisbon Treaty instead of creating a single voice mechanism unleashed a power struggle between different institutions. On the other hand, supporters of the Treaty provisions on foreign policy claimed that taking into consideration the inefficiency of the institutional structure of the EU foreign policy, different officials were authorised to represent the EU on the international arena. By Lisbon Treaty, such authority was delegated to a single person called the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (Kreidman, 2008).

Thus, focussing on relevant provisions of Lisbon Treaty on the High Representative, this article will present an analysis on issues of institutional importance which we have witnessed since the introduction of Treaty. In other words, the article offers a brief glance on evolution of the powers of the High Representative and challenges it is facing currently.

This article will first elaborate on the establishment of the post of High Representative by Amsterdam Treaty. Analysing the personal input of first High Representative, Javier Solana, in the development of this institution, the article will also briefly consider the possible changes that the EU Constitution could have brought. Providing a detailed analysis of the provisions of Treaty of Lisbon, the article will further give a brief introduction of the establishment and main tasks of European External Action Service. Moreover, the inconsistencies and challenging aspects with regards to the mandate of the High Representative will be outlined based on terms of offices of Catherine Ashton and Federica Mogherini. In the conclusion section, it will be shown that the Lisbon Treaty reforms made to the post of High Representative, although not comprehensive, were of utmost importance for EU’s further institutional development.

The Competences of High Representative Under the EU Treaty

Before the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union was a pillar structured supranational organisation. Established at the beginning as more of an economic union, EC/EU, evolved significantly through years, and as Simon Nuttall suggests, the Community gained a third pillar by Single European Act and second one by Maastricht Treaty (Nuttall, 1992). As the Treaty of Lisbon abolished the pillar system, it introduced new mechanisms, including those on external activities of the EU institutions. Lisbon Treaty explicitly consolidated legal personality for the EU, making it an independent entity in its own right. ² Legal status was also given to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Also, with every new treaty, the legislative powers of the Parliament have expanded and the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty lead to a formation of a bicameral legislature within the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure previously known as a ‘codecision procedure’. This procedure, sometimes also referred to as ‘the community method’ (in a contrast to the intergovernmental method), ensures an equal footing between Parliament and Council (Craig & Búrca, 2017).

Parliament has limited decision-making role in foreign policy. With regards to common foreign and security policy (CFSP), the High Representative is required to consult Parliament regularly on its principal aspects and basic choices. Also he/she needs to inform Parliament on how CFSP evolves. ³ These principles were once again underlined in a declaration of High Representative on political accountability, where many other measures were suggested in order to facilitate better cooperation between these two institutions (Joint Consultation Meetings, in-depth dialogue, etc.) (Declaration by the High Representative on Political Accountability, 2010). Parliament exercises its authority by approving the annual CFSP budget. It also overviews European External Action Service (EEAS)-related issues and holds regular discussions with the High Representative and the EU Special Representatives. Along with the creation of a long-term President of the European Council, the High Representative was one of the institutional novelties of Lisbon Treaty. The previous attempt to establish a post of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Union failed, and by new Treaty, the very national policy (foreign and security affairs) received Union’s Representation. The High Representative is appointed by the European Council by a qualified majority voting (QMV) with the agreement of the President of the Commission and the consent of the European Parliament. ⁴

However, the pillar structure had its strong imprint on the institutional structure and particularly on the post of the High Representative. Initially, very limited in scope, this post was introduced under the Treaty of Amsterdam, according to which ‘the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union should have the function of the High Representative for the common foreign and security policy’ (CFSP). High Representative was ‘seconded by the deputy Secretary-General of the Council’. At the same time, by the Amsterdam Treaty, the Commission became involved in the abovementioned tasks (Hill & Karen, 2003).

As we can see, High Representative was put in quite a challenging position being linked to the Council, the Presidency and to the Commission. In order to promote a coherent foreign policy, he/she had to work closely and with high level of flexibility both with the Council and the Commission, no matter how different their views were on the EU policies implementation. The post of High Representative and his/her competences were more complicated than it might initially seem. Along with aforementioned responsibilities of cooperation with ‘troika’, the High Representative had to cooperate with the Permanent Representatives Committee (from French Comité des représentants permanents, COREPER) and the Political Committee. At the Cologne European Council in June 1999, former NATO secretary-general Javier Solana was appointed the first High Representative. In 10 years on this position, this so-called ‘master of behind-the-scenes diplomacy’ managed to transform the CFSP into an impressive institute with hundreds of experts and diplomats. Solana was a high-profile, respected and competent diplomat, and soon the results of his work dissolved the sceptical concerns about this post (Smith, 2004). The ability of High Representative, together with his team, to set political priorities and formulate consistent policies was named ‘Solanaization’, which implies efforts of the High Representative to increase the influence of EU on the international arena (Koops & Macaj, 2015).

The title of the High Representative sounded rather complicated; however, according to many authors, Solana was perceived as ‘head of EU foreign policy’ by the third countries. These countries often preferred to meet and negotiate with Solana than with some unfamiliar foreign minister of the Presidency (especially when the Presidency was in a small member state) (Crowe, 2003). The evaluation of Solana’s work is quite positive due to his increased visibility and large experience in multilateral negotiations and also his personal connections (Marangoni, 2012).

Nevertheless, on many occasions, the High Representative had shared competences and no significant independent powers. To start with, he was supposed to have the Council’s approval on certain position before expressing it publicly. For instance, when in 1999, Solana publicly endorsed the idea of the EU having a permanent seat at the UN Security Council (UNSC), UK and France officials made it clear that it was not EU’s common vision. As for Solana himself, he had mentioned that the most difficult moment of his job was related to the disagreement of UK and France over Iraqi crisis, when he, being pushed to the side in negotiations, operated as a ‘quiet diplomat’ (Rettman, 2009). Dualism stipulated by the existence of external relations’ commissioner was another source of inconsistency (Giulia & Viceré, 2018).

European Constitution and the Reforms Envisaged for the Post of High Representative

Despite Solana’s great personal contribution to the position of the High Representative, the overall visibility of EU external policies was still a tough issue. Rotation of Council presidency every six month mandates shared among three institutions did not lead to establishing of a common but rather ‘fragmented’ image of EU foreign policy.

Preparatory work for the European Convention on the Future of the Union and the amendments introduced by the Intergovernmental Conference resulted in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, programmed to be a Reform Treaty, ⁵ in which a whole Title V was dedicated to the Union’s external action, including eight chapters on CFSP, common commercial policy and humanitarian aid.

Should the Treaty had entered into the force, the new position of the High Representative would have gained greater independence from both Council and the Presidency in setting up of proposals. The need for reform was apparent; however, unfortunately, the first attempt to improve this situation and undertake crucial institutional reforms was unsuccessful when EU Constitution failed after negative referenda in France and the Netherlands.

Provisions of Treaty of Lisbon on High Representative

The Treaty of Lisbon with the help of the usual amendment method implemented many of the reforms considered by the Constitution. Without going into the details of the nature of these reforms, it must be admitted that the long-awaited institutional reform of the EU finally took place. Treaty of Lisbon amends the previous Treaties, and today, they are called the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which means that amendments of the Treaty and old texts of the Treaties form two legal acts (Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2007). Let us analyse provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon with reference to the post of the High Representative and his/her competences.

The High Representative becomes the most pivotal player in the implementation and ensuring the unity, consistency and effectiveness of not only the former first pillar, that is, common foreign and security policy, but also all other external European policies, dealing also with all matters of crisis management. According to the mandate of the Council, he shall contribute by his proposals to the development of CFSP as well as common security and defence policy. ⁶ Along with one national of each member state and its president, the Commission shall consist also of the High Representative who is at the same time one of its Vice-Presidents. ⁷ Being one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission, High Representative is subject to an approval by the European Parliament, since TEU provides that the President, High Representative and other members of the Commission are collegially to be approved by Parliament. ⁸ The President of the Commission does not appoint the High Representative. The appointment of the High Representative is a process involving the participation of different EU bodies. It is done by the European Council with the agreement of the President of the Commission acts by a QMV. The procedure to end his term is the same. Therefore, the President of the Commission needs the agreement of the European Council to effectively obtain exoneration of the High Representative. The High Representative bears responsibilities within the Commission incumbent on it in external relations and for coordinating other aspects of the Union’s external action. The High Representative presides over the Foreign Affairs Council. ⁹

The High Representative has gained many possibilities to launch initiatives, give opinions and offer consultations. For example, in cases when a quick decision is required, he/she may convene meeting within 48 hours (or even within a shorter period in case of emergency) either of his own motion, or at the request of a member state, an extraordinary Council. ¹⁰ He/she can also propose the candidature of a special representative, which is appointed by Council but supervised by the High Representative. The Union delegations are also under the authority of the High Representative. ¹¹ The High Representative consults on a regular basis the European Parliament on the main aspects of the EU foreign policy as well as developments in enhanced cooperation. ¹²

The President of the European Council ensures the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its CFSP without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative, who in his/her turn takes part in the work of the European Council. ¹³ The High Representative equipped with EEAS shall conduct political dialogue with third parties on the Union’s behalf, also expressing the EU position in international organisations and at international conferences. Member states represented in international organisations or international conferences, as well as member states which are members of the UNSC, shall keep the High Representative fully informed of any matter of common interest. On certain defined subjects, the High Representative is invited to present the Union’s position at the UNSC. ¹⁴

The abovementioned competences of High Representative provide him/her a stronger position, particularly in the area of overseeing, implementing and ensuring the integrity of EU external policies. In cooperation with other EU institutions, High Representative has more mechanisms to act effectively in various dimensions of external policy.

Summarising all the provisions, we can state that it is expected that the head of the foreign service of the European Union will fulfil the following four main tasks:

Conduct foreign policy together with the EU member states, but without prejudice to their interests;

In light of these tasks, three main challenging questions with regards to the long-term performance of High Representative of his/her duties are still pending:

Is one single person able to cover so many important areas and assume the workload described above?

European External Action Service

The establishment of the EEAS is a significant innovation within the organisational structure of the Union’s institutions in order to give its external action greater consistency and visibility, as well as directly influence its relationship with international organisations and third states. It can provide the Union with a more coherent, visible and effective way of conducting its foreign policy (Piris, 2010, pp. 248–249).

The EEAS is considered to be a sui generis service within the Union, independent of the Commission and Secretariat of the Council which possesses autonomy in budgeting and staff management. The structure of the EEAS largely reflects a multi-branched approach, since along with assisting the High Representative, it also assists other institutional actors in foreign policy matters: the President of the European Council and the President of the Commission (Rangel de Mesquita, 2011). Launched officially in 2010, EEAS soon started effectively its operations. With a view to the political background of the period when this service was created, it should be stated it was a preparatory stage when many responsibilities of EU institutions very not clearly specified. Council Decision dated 26 of July 2010 on assigning the EEAS with certain tasks, it is stated that ‘the EEAS supports the High Representative in fulfilling responsibilities related to the Union’s external action <…> without prejudice to the normal tasks of the services of the Commission’ (Cardwell, 2012). It illustrates that the matter of ‘normal tasks’ is quite vague and could be interpreted in different ways. Summing up further developments, it must be concluded that the Commission managed to maintain overall control over its policies in external affairs. Earlier, in 2009, Swedish Presidency had prepared a report on main aspects of the future service. Elaborated on the basis of debates with COREPER and Council, this report contained among many others suggestions to the one on the authority of High Representative. With respect to this report, the European Council invited the future High Representative to prepare his/her proposal on EEAS after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. It was previewed at the latest by the end of April 2010. ¹⁵ So, High Representative was provided with guidelines on EEAS, and when Ashton took office, she obviously availed to a great extent hose procedural and substantive recommendations. Her draft proposal was not quite welcomed by European Parliament which viewed in the creation of a new structure major institutional consequences. After long so-called quadrilogue negotiations (High Representative, Council, Parliament and the Commission), a consensus was achieved, and on 8 July 2010, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council Decision establishing the organisation and functioning of the EEAS was finally approved by the European Parliament. ¹⁶

Inconsistencies and Challenging Aspects

As mentioned above, pillar system has influenced the image of many current institutions a lot. So, it did with the post of High Representative where until now we faced a certain level of dualism that is called the ‘double hatting concept’ (sometimes even triple because of High Representative being a chair of the various formations in the Foreign Affairs Council). The rationale behind this concept was the external activity of the Union acquiring ‘horizontal coherency’ in supranational Commission and intergovernmental Council.

It needs to be highlighted also that despite certain changes made to the use of QMV, unanimity is still the standard procedure for the CFSP. Actually, decisions in many policy areas that were moved from unanimity to QMV are mostly technical. No doubts that as long as decisions on EU foreign policy are subject to unanimity, a true common foreign and security policy will be less likely to develop. Yet, member states by submitting their international relations to Union control would face major implications for national sovereignty. In this case, a move towards QMV would establish a new and completely different Union than the one currently that exists.

High Representative is supposed to maintain balance while being subject to the internal workings of the Commission when acting in the capacity of Commissioner of External Relations on the one hand and with the European Council on matters of foreign policy on the other hand. This practice has never existed in the pillared EU system. There are other scenarios that can provoke conflicts between the High Representative and other EU institutions. The clash of competences may happen if the positions on certain matters differ between High Representative and President of Commission or other Commissioners or even the President of European Council. In order to avoid this kind of complications, more extensive negotiation of EU common stance is a good solution, but this eventually leads to a substantial delay of a decision-making process, particularly on external policy-related issues. On a final note, it is important to recall that many experts agree that expectations on the High Representative post were too high, and as we may see now, his/her actual capabilities are confronted with the complex contrast of the system of foreign policy in the EU (Helwig, 2013).

On November 2009, Catherine Ashton became the first High Representative for Foreign Affairs in the format defined by the Treaty of Lisbon; before that, she had been a member of the European Trade Commission for a year. Her appointment to the new post was quite unexpected and was a consensus decision. The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, proposed candidature of Ashton for this post after it became clear that the candidacy of the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair for the post of European Council President will not receive enough support neither in Brussels nor in other major European capitals. Blair’s reputation in Europe had suffered due to his decision on the British participation in the military campaign NATO in Iraq.

Ashton’s appointment has been on many occasions severely criticised as a ‘complete disaster’ for many reasons linked to her managerial incompetence or for negligence of her Vice-Commissioner post, but mainly for the mere fact that the role of High Representative with various ‘hats’ is too tough for one individual to fulfil all of its requirements (Hoquee, 2011). She actually argued the fact that the establishment of the post of High Representative was not supposed to result in the EU speaking with ‘one voice’. In Ashton’s view, the key task of High Representative is to ensure consistency in general and ‘less competing’ voices regarding the EU external policy issues rather than the Union speaking with one voice (Trybus, 2012).

The institutional complexity of High Representative post led to many tensions among them, lack of coherency: facing hard situations, Lady Ashton preferred opinion of the European Council rather than the Commission’s one. ¹⁷

Overlapping of the mandates of Ashton with those of the President of the European Commission has become a source of rivalry. President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, established a separate post for Commissioner on the European Neighborhood Policy that was explained as ‘separate positions would ensure a better division of labor’. However, it was largely understood as a measure to diminish the power of the High Representative (Behr, Siitonen, & Nykänen, 2010). Thus, despite the fact that member states delegated via Lisbon Treaty a wide range of competences to the High Representative, there was a clear competition between the Commission and the High Representative, and this has lessened the chances of the latter for manoeuvring.

Another ‘coordination challenge’ in implementation of High Representative’s mandate was Ashton’s decision to terminate mandate of a number of EU Special Representatives (EUSRs). Deployed since 1996, EUSRs are considered more flexible and a targeted tool of EU foreign policy in conflict management. On another hand, all EUSR activities receive funds from the CFSP chapter of the EU budget which are managed by the European Commission’s Foreign Policy Instruments Service. Thus, the administration of these funds becomes more flexible, and it makes member states prone to retain this instrument of EU foreign policy (Tolksdorf, 2012). By abolishing several EUSRs, their mandates were either transferred to the new EU delegations or directly to the EEAS. For the reasons mentioned above, as well as due to a lack of personnel in the EEAS, some member states argued against this decision. As a result of a compromise, the two EUSR mandates (for the South Caucasus and for the crisis in Georgia) were merged. Although some EUSR mandates have been transferred to EEAS, Council opposed the plan of the High Representative to limit with regards to EUSRs activities and appointed new ones for the Southern Mediterranean, the Horn of Africa, Sahel and the Middle East peace process (Koops & Macaj, 2015).

Ashton has also received a positive feedback for her decisive role in negotiations with Serbia and Kosovo and Iran (Spiegeleisen, 2013). German ‘Der Spiegel’ even wrote that Ashton established the High Representative ‘at the centre of world diplomacy’ (Schmitz & Schult, 2018).

It is important to highlight some practical aspects of the functioning of the High Representative. For instance, Catherine Ashton, in accordance with the Treaty of Lisbon, participated in a number of meetings and diplomatic meetings—NATO and European Union Summit—delivered speeches at the UNSC on several occasions. With regard to the summit meetings of the European Union, the Presidency of the Commission and the European Council both were present. The role of the High Representative in presiding over the Foreign Affairs Council is undoubtedly fundamental, as it is his/her responsibility to keep the ministers of the member states in this body informed of their meetings and participation in diplomatic events concerning matters of general interest. In addition, it is the High Representative’s task to seek agreement or consensus on a common position of the Union within that body.

Ashton’s successor Federica Mogherini announced ‘a more prominent role of the Commissioner group for external relations’. ¹⁸ Unlike Ashton, Mogherini in order to coordinate more effectively with Commission’s external relations regularly held meetings, and eventually Commission was said to be more engaged in CFSP (Helwig, 2017). She was also criticised for the lack of the two most significant features required for this post: experience in leadership in an integrated Europe and personal international status. She was an Italian foreign minister for six months, didn’t really know well the EU complex institutional system and was little known outside of Europe. Not only she was criticised, but also treated by many member states in a suspicious manner with respect to her ‘too soft’ attitude to Russian in light of the Crimean crisis (Tocci, 2017, p. 36).

No matter how hard she tries to avail herself from the tools of CFSP, it is up to the EU member states to agree or not with the establishment of a concrete EU foreign policy. Member states considering the institutional capacity of High Representative admit that there is a need for making his/her position stronger. Particularly it is stated that there is a need to enable him/her to assume the role of coordinator within the Commission with clearly specified rules on the cooperation on external matters between High Representative and other Commissioners (Dyduch, Michalewska-Pawlak, & Murphy, 2014). It is hard to say whether this is going to happen or not in the circumstances when Europe is challenged by the inclination of its member states to go back to their national policies.

Recent elections of the European Parliament (between 23 and 26 May 2019) also need to be analysed from the perspective of the topic of this article. There was no decrease in the number of MEPs due to the fact that Article 50 of Lisbon Treaty (provisions under which a member state can leave the EU) has been extended until 30 October 2019. In this 9th Parliament, there was a drastic change in parties’ representation. According to the report on the developments in the political landscape, centre-left and centre-right parties faced significant losses. ¹⁹ Most seats now belong to European People’s Party, and this will obviously affect the candidature of next key posts in EU. Now, let us look how this is related to High Representative (HR). EU leaders are discussing over top EU positions considering gender, geographical balance as well as political affiliation. The outcomes of the elections will inevitably impact the next candidate and the replacement of Mogherini is expected (her term comes to an end this year). Because the summit in Brussels failed to reach consensus on main top jobs, it is expected that there will be a delay in appointment to the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs. ²⁰

Today, the EU is being challenged by economic and political crises, Brexit process, migration crisis and terrorist threats. On 14 June 2016, Mogherini published EU Global Strategy overshadowed by Brexit but at the same time delivered a message that EU is capable of staying united in such difficult times. With regards to the Brexit process, Mogherini has commented that Brexit weakening UK’s role in the world will not affect the Union’s ability to wield power. She also criticised Donald Trump’s interfering into EU matters by supporting Brexit (EU’s Mogherini Warns US Not to ‘Interfere’ in European Politics, 2017). Her strong position since the beginning was to maintain a plurality in the EU as one of the most precious assets of EU systems and act in a more coordinated manner. With a view of Brexit negotiations, her efforts were focussed on the maintaining the remaining 27 member states united. Another example of unity is the decision of EU member states on sanctions with respect to Crimea. ²¹

Conclusion

The European Union is the largest integration project ever realised. The EU being the biggest market in the world comprises many different cultures and policies. Member states have delegated to EU’s supranational institutions sovereignty in many key areas. However, EU foreign policy remained mostly a national affair. Today, the EU is facing new challenges which will by all means influence its further institutional development. One of these challenges is the conflict between two main versions of European vision for the future, that is, the divergence between the liberal Western flank of the EU debating for ‘sovereignty of the individual’ versus new EU members from Eastern Europe who are conservative on liberal values, supporting ‘the sovereignty of the nation’. This divergence is not only ideological, but economic one. In this article, the post of the High Representative was analysed with regards to its main characteristics and implications of its functioning, as well as its cooperation with other institutions of the Union, in particular the European Council and the Commission. Understanding the inherent responsibilities of the High Representative is of great importance with respect to the study of EU’s external policies.

It is thus possible to conclude that the High Representative has pivotal responsibility at the forefront of the Union’s day-to-day external relations and should regularly respond to the development of its external action. That is to say, the High Representative must be able to bring harmony and be considered a true ‘bridge builder’ in a field where, in practice, it is still difficult to coordinate work with national diplomacy (Kaddous, 2008).

The need to define common objectives in this area cannot be underestimated. This is not an easy task, particularly in the area of CFSP and CSDP, as national differences are sometimes very obvious and member states are still reluctant to reduce their influence. It needs to be underlined, however, that based on the materials used for this article, one fact is undeniable—the personality for the position of High Representative does matter. This is to say that in international relations success of any undertaking depends not only on clearly stated definitions of responsibilities of the position but also on his/her fundamental personality traits, reputation, experience, etc.

In general, it is the responsibility of the High Representative to coordinate and articulate the Union’s external action in order to ensure consistency in all aspects of this area. Certainly, each of the EU institutions has a particular role in this field, but in an interrelated way. Likewise, in this context, interconnected competencies of the President of the European Council and the Presidency of the Commission institutionalised by the Treaty of Lisbon are discussed.

In the field of institutional changes in external action, Lisbon Treaty brings a variety of changes to the mandate of High Representative. As we can see, the Union’s foreign policy has a complex structure. There are sceptics who fear that in the context of triangular drama, overlapping of powers between the EU institutions may lead to confusion in the division of powers, in particular with respect to their external representation. The post of High Representative is going through an evolutionary process, and practice over time will facilitate the development of the relationship between High Representative and other EU institutions, where much depends and will still depend on the personality who holds the position. Whether the consistency and effectiveness of EU’s external actions will be achieved or not remains to be seen.