Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
EU foreign and security policy in BosniaThe politics of coherence and effectiveness$

Ana E. Juncos

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780719082405

Published to Manchester Scholarship Online: September 2013

DOI: 10.7228/manchester/9780719082405.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM MANCHESTER SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.manchester.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Manchester University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in MSO for personal use (for details see http://www.manchester.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 26 February 2017

(p.178) Appendices

(p.178) Appendices

Source:
EU foreign and security policy in Bosnia
Publisher:
Manchester University Press

Online survey

  • Q1. From your experience, which one from the list below is the main obstacle for a coherent and effective CFSP/CSDP?

    Percentage

    N

    Lack of a common identity

    25

    7

    Divergence among member state interests

    53.6

    15

    Inappropriate institutions

    17.9

    5

  • Q2. Do you think that coherence and effectiveness of CFSP/CSDP have increased or decreased since 1991?

    Percentage

    N

    Increased

    92.9

    26

    Decreased

    0

    0

    Remained constant

    3.6

    1

  • Q3. Please can you indicate which of the following institutional reforms has increased coherence and effectiveness of CFSP/CSDP.

    Percentage

    N

    High Representative

    60.7

    17

    Rotating Presidency

    7.1

    2

    Policy Unit

    57.1

    16

    Political and Security Committee

    60.7

    17

    Constructive abstention

    7.1

    2

    Common strategies

    21.4

    6

    QMV for joint actions

    10.7

    3

    Right of initiative for Commission

    32.1

    9

  • (p.179) Q4. Do you consult with other national delegations prior to formal meetings?

    Percentage

    N

    Yes, always

    17.9

    5

    Yes, most of the time

    71.4

    20

    Yes, rarely

    10.7

    3

    Never

    0

    0

  • Q5. If yes, how often does your delegation consult with other delegations prior to the formal meetings?

    Percentage

    N

    Many times per week

    53.6

    15

    Once per week

    32.1

    9

    Once per month

    10.7

    3

    Less than once per month

    3.6

    1

  • Q6. From the following criteria, could you indicate which one you take into account in order to privilege communication with partners from other member states? (1 = to a lesser extent; 4 = to a greater extent)

    Mean

    Geographical proximity (neighbourhood)

    2.7

    Size of the country

    2.5

    Economic interests

    2.4

    Security interests

    2.8

    Similarity of values and norms

    3.3

  • Q7. From your own experience, which of the following images is closer to the predominant behaviour in CFSP negotiations?

    Percentage

    N

    Consensus-building

    96.4

    27

    Hard-bargaining

    3.6

    1

  • Q9. According to your own experience, are there any sensitive issues that are excluded from discussions?

    Percentage

    N

    Yes

    46.4

    23

    No

    50.0

    14

  • (p.180) Q10. Which objective should be given priority in EU external action? (1 = to a lesser extent; 3 = to a greater extent)

    Mean

    Promotion of EU security interests

    2.8

    Respect of human rights, democracy and rule of law

    2.7

    Promotion of EU economic interests

    2.4