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 Please do not cite without permission of author(s).

Transcription

1 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 Please do not cite without permission of author(s).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 Introduction 1 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. 2

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). 3

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 powersharing 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). 4

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 5

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 11 th. 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 4 th March 1996 relating to Local consular cooperation regarding visas. Official Journal C 080, 18 March. 6

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. 7

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 country 6. 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 4 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. 5 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. 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 /2/04 REV 2, 11 October. 8

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 cooperation were taken. The first allowed for the systematic participation of the representative of the Delegations of the Commission in meetings of local consular co-operation 8, 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 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). 9

10 Code on Visas or Visa Code. 11 This regulation came into force in April 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 then 12. 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 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 Amendments: Regulation (EC) 2414/2001, R (EC) 851/2005, R (EC) 1932/2006 and R (EC) 1211/

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 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 , Brussels, 5 December, COM(2007) 767 Final. 14 European Commission (2007) 767 Final, Op. Cit. 11

12 EU citizens take to third countries increased from over 80 million in 2005 to over 90 million trips in 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 /06, December. See Green Paper on Consular and Diplomatic Protection, COM (2006c) 712 final, 28 November 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 /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 /03); Council of the EU (2006b) Guidelines on consular protection of EU citizens in third countries (Doc /2/06 REV 2). 12

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 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 Council of the EU (2007), Lead State Concept, Doc /07. 13

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 , to create true Euroconsulates 20 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 Summary Report of Public Hearing on the Green Paper on Diplomatic and Consular Protection, 2007, p.5. 14

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 (subunit of the Crisis Response and Operational Coordination Department-CROC) has become significant. For instance, Action Plan 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 15

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 16

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 coexistence 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 17

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): 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): 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: 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 18

19 of the Regions: Effective consular protection in third countries. The contribution of the EU. Action Plan , 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 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 /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 /03. 19

20 Council of the EU (2004), Common Consular Instruction, Annex 18, Doc /2/04 REV 2, 11 October. Council of the EU (2006a), Closer consular cooperation, Doc /06, December. Council of the EU (2006b) Guidelines on consular protection of EU citizens in third countries, Doc /2/06 REV 2. Council of the EU (2007), Lead State Concept, Doc /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): 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): Fernández Pasarín, A. (2009) Local consular co-operation: Administering EU internal security overseas, European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(4): 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 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

21 Porzio, G. (2008) Consular Assistance and Protection: An EU Perspective, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 3(1): 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): Touzé, S. (2011) Aspects récents (et choisis) de la protection consulaire des citoyens de l Union européenne, Revue des affaires européennes, 1: 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): 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 _nonpaperfms_en.pdf 21