@incollection{SusOpilowska, author = {Sus, Monika and Opilowska, Elzbieta}, title = {Poland and Germany in the European Union: Transformation of the Bilateral Relations}, series = {Diversity in Europe}, booktitle = {Diversity in Europe}, editor = {Gr{\"o}zinger, Gerd and Gaitanides, Charlotte}, publisher = {Nomos}, address = {Baden-Baden}, isbn = {978-3-8487-1847-4}, pages = {129 -- 142}, language = {en} } @article{SusKarolewskiMehlhausen, author = {Sus, Monika and Karolewski, Ireneusz Pawel and Mehlhausen, Thomas}, title = {The Polish EU Council Presidency in 2011: Master or Servant?}, series = {Journal of European Integration}, volume = {37}, journal = {Journal of European Integration}, number = {6}, publisher = {Taylor and Francis}, address = {London [u.a.]}, issn = {0703-6337}, doi = {10.1080/07036337.2015.1053085}, pages = {667 -- 684}, abstract = {The point of departure of this article is limited systematic research on the rotating EU Council Presidency after the Lisbon Treaty. In order to assess rotating presidencies the paper proposes a three-tier approach which includes a functional, a behavioural and a contingency dimension. These dimensions are supplemented by the institutional changes of the Lisbon Treaty referring to the rotating presidencies. Next, the paper applies this evaluation framework to the Polish Presidency that took place in the second half of 2011. Finally, it draws conclusions from the Polish case for both the leadership capacity of the rotating Council Presidency in the post-Lisbon European Union and the performance of Poland's EU Council Presidency.}, language = {en} } @article{Sus, author = {Sus, Monika}, title = {Polish Role in Shaping the EU Foreign and Security Policy during its Council Presidency in 2011}, series = {Yearbook of Polish European Studies}, journal = {Yearbook of Polish European Studies}, number = {17}, publisher = {Centrum Europejskie Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego}, address = {Warszawa}, issn = {1428-1503}, pages = {191 -- 208}, abstract = {Poland, being the biggest country among the new Member States, has a well-defined foreign policy interest, particularly towards the Eastern neighbourhood. This article examines the involvement of Polish Presidency of the Council in the development of the foreign and security policy of the European Union. Considering the serious limitations placed on the role of the rotating Presidency in the post-Lisbon institutional framework, the analysis investigates the patterns of action Poland followed, which involved the providing of the operational backup for the High Representative as well as bringing its own contributions to the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council. As the article demonstrates, the rotating Presidency can still redound to the further development of the foreign and security policy.}, language = {en} } @misc{SusKarolewski, author = {Sus, Monika and Karolewski, Ireneusz Pawel}, title = {The transformative power of Europe: the case of Poland}, publisher = {Nomos}, address = {Baden-Baden}, isbn = {978-3-8487-1987-7}, pages = {254 S.}, abstract = {The volume deals with the impact of the EU on the Polish state and governance. Contributors from Politics and Law explore transformation processes, which are influenced by the EU, took place in the legal system, party landscape and various policy fields in Poland. The authors analyze amongs others counterterrorism policy, climate and energy policy, foreign policy as well as gender equality policy of Poland. In addition, the transformation processes in the Polish judiciary, interest representation and parties are discussed.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Sus, author = {Sus, Monika}, title = {Polish foreign policy after 2004: How European is it really? The case of the Eastern dimension of the ENP}, series = {The Transformative Power of Europe: The case of Poland}, booktitle = {The Transformative Power of Europe: The case of Poland}, publisher = {Nomos}, address = {Baden-Baden}, isbn = {978-3-8487-1987-7}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {169 -- 189}, abstract = {The purpose of the chapter is to show how European integration has influenced Polish foreign policy after the accession and it does so by using the Europeanisation approach. The first section addresses the methodological challenges regarding the application of the Europeanisation concept for studying national foreign policies and gives an insight into the state of the art concerning the empirical studies on Polish diplomacy. The second section examines the EU's impact on Polish diplomacy within the case study of the policy towards the eastern neighbours and identifies factors which played a role by re-shaping Polish diplomacy after the accession. The final section summarises the findings and deals with the question of how European Polish foreign policy became and what the reasons were for the change within this particular case study.}, language = {en} } @article{SusKulesa, author = {Sus, Monika and Kulesa, Łukasz}, title = {Breaking the silence: explaining the dynamics behind Poland's desire to join NATO nuclear sharing in light of Russian aggression against Ukraine}, series = {The Nonproliferation Review}, volume = {30}, journal = {The Nonproliferation Review}, number = {4-6}, publisher = {Informa UK Limited}, doi = {10.1080/10736700.2024.2432807}, pages = {241 -- 263}, abstract = {Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Polish policy leaders publicly called for their country to be included in NATO's nuclear-sharing program. This article explores why Warsaw decided to break with its long-standing tradition of not raising the issue because of the controversy that the potential deployment of nuclear weapons in Poland would cause among allies and the risk of increased tensions with Russia. Drawing on John Kingdon's Multiple Streams Approach, we demonstrate that a simultaneous occurrence of external and internal factors has driven the shift in Poland's policy. Among the former, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the announcement of deployment of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus have been decisive. As for the internal conditions, a shift in public and elite attitudes toward greater support for Poland joining NATO's nuclear-sharing program has proven to be crucial. The article also considers the reasons why the United States has remained reluctant to support the Polish proposal, linking the Polish case to the broader debate on NATO's nuclear-deterrence posture.}, language = {en} } @article{MartillSus, author = {Martill, Benjamin and Sus, Monika}, title = {With or Without EU: Differentiated Integration and the Politics of Post-Brexit EU-UK Security Collaboration}, series = {European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration}, volume = {7}, journal = {European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration}, number = {3}, doi = {10.15166/2499-8249/611}, pages = {1287 -- 1302}, abstract = {Research on differentiated integration has flourished in recent years, highlighting the political and efficiency gains to be had from selective participation and third country engagement in EU policy areas. Proposals for an EU-UK security and defence agreement represented a paradigmatic example of differentiated disintegration, for which both strategic and political prospects initially appeared positive, yet which ultimately foundered on the back of the EU's reluctance to create new third country models and subsequent political upheaval in the UK. This Article asks why these proposals failed and what this can tell us about the politics of differentiated (dis)integration, focusing on the referendum to the recent Ukraine crisis, and drawing on several elite interviews conducted with policymakers in London and Brussels. It shows that while the strategic benefits of differentiation increased following the Brexit vote, the growing concern in Brussels for the precedent set by Brexit, the collapse of issue-specific dynamics into a singular concern for UK "cherry picking", and the rightward shift in UK politics occasioned by the Brexit negotiations all undermined the prospects for a differentiated outcome in security and defence. The Ukraine crisis, while precipitating significant changes in many European states, had thus far failed to alter the new status quo locked in after Brexit.}, language = {en} } @article{Sus, author = {Sus, Monika}, title = {Making Use of a Window of Opportunity: The Czech Presidencyʼs Performance in Foreign and Security Policy}, series = {Czech Journal of International Relations}, volume = {58}, journal = {Czech Journal of International Relations}, number = {1}, doi = {10.32422/mv-cjir.515}, pages = {101 -- 111}, abstract = {This article assesses the achievements of the Czech presidency of the Council of the EU regarding foreign and security policy in the second half of 2022, while taking into account the external context provided by the Russian war in Ukraine, national conditions in which the presidency was conducted, and issue-specific characteristics related to EU foreign and security policy. It discusses where the Czech presidency has managed to contribute to progress, such as the implementation of the Strategic Compass and the reinvigoration of the enlargement process, as well as pointing out shortcomings where it failed to deliver results. Overall, the article argues that by skilfully setting and scheduling the agenda and staying on top of the key policy dossiers, Prague successfully leveraged the window of opportunity triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine to push tangible progress within security and defence issues forward.}, language = {en} } @incollection{MartillSus, author = {Martill, Benjamin and Sus, Monika}, title = {Growing Apart Together? Brexit and the Dynamics of Differentiated Disintegration in Security and Defense}, series = {The Routledge Handbook of Differentiation in the European Union}, booktitle = {The Routledge Handbook of Differentiation in the European Union}, editor = {Leruth, Benjamin and G{\"a}nzle, Stefan and Trondal, Jarle}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {London}, isbn = {9780429054136}, doi = {10.4324/9780429054136-47}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {696 -- 711}, abstract = {Brexit initially raised the prospect of new forms of external differentiation in the European Union (EU), should the United Kingdom continue to participate in a number of the Union's policy areas. Security and defence was one area where agreement on the terms of UK participation was more likely, given the clear interests of both sides in the development of a close partnership in this area. But agreement has been so difficult to reach, and the final Brexit deal makes no mention of collaboration in foreign, security and defence policy. We argue that the key to understanding this puzzle lies in understanding the politics of differentiated disintegration, of which Brexit is the prime example, and the distinction between strategic and political interests. While strategic interests constitute a driver for external differentiation, the political interests arising from the withdrawal process make it difficult to reach an agreement. Divorcing strategic cooperation from the short-term politics of negotiations is the first step to overcoming the stalemate, and this chapter presents several ways this can be achieved. By perceiving Brexit as a case of differentiated disintegration, this chapter accounts for the significant constraints associated with external differentiation as a mode of integration in the EU.}, language = {en} } @techreport{SusPicasKakkoetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Sus, Monika and Picas, Anna Fonts and Kakko, Henna and Ojanen, Hanna and Vandendriessche, Marie}, title = {Case Studies of EU and Member State Engagement with Strategic International Organisations}, series = {ENGAGE Working Paper Series}, journal = {ENGAGE Working Paper Series}, number = {28}, abstract = {This working paper examines the European Union's (EU) strategic partnerships with International Organisations (IOs) in dealing with different crises. Through the lens of three distinct case studies, it investigates the EU's collaboration with the United Nations in addressing the Mali crisis, its joint efforts with NATO in response to the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, and its partnership with the African Union in the context of climate change.}, language = {en} } @article{AmadioVicereSus, author = {Amadio Vicer{\´e}, Maria Giulia and Sus, Monika}, title = {Differentiated cooperation as the mode of governance in EU foreign policy}, series = {Contemporary Security Policy}, volume = {44}, journal = {Contemporary Security Policy}, number = {1}, issn = {1352-3260; 1743-8764}, doi = {10.1080/13523260.2023.2168854}, pages = {4 -- 34}, abstract = {While the standard conceptualization of differentiation in the European Union (EU) focuses on differentiated integration, scholars devote less attention to differentiated cooperation. This article argues, on the contrary, that member states' engagement in differentiated efforts in EU foreign policy manifest themselves both in the form of differentiated integration and cooperation. It elaborates an original conceptual framework for exploring differentiated cooperation as a mode of governance. Drawing on the articles in this special issue, this introduction maps empirical manifestations of differentiated cooperation in various areas and dimensions of EU foreign policy. The results of the special issue show that differentiated cooperation has mostly manifested itself in informal patterns of cooperation, with the treaty-based mechanisms being limited. As such, the special issue reflects the differentiation and informalization processes occurring not only in the EU, but also in global governance more broadly.}, language = {en} } @article{Sus, author = {Sus, Monika}, title = {Exploring the dynamics of policy change in EU security and defence: policy entrepreneurs behind the Strategic Compass}, series = {West European Politics}, journal = {West European Politics}, doi = {10.1080/01402382.2023.2232704}, abstract = {Drawing on Kingdon's Multiple Stream Approach, the article analyses the political dynamics that led to the introduction of the Strategic Compass, which gained prominence in the context of the Russian war in Ukraine. Due to its comprehensiveness and adoption at the highest political level - the European Council - the study considers the Compass a manifestation of policy change. Assuming that change in EU security policy originates from various sources, the article identifies Germany, France, the High Representative, and the European Commission as potential policy entrepreneurs. By examining their entrepreneurial strategies, it traces their footprint on policy change. The analysis reveals a particularly strong influence of French diplomacy on the process of shaping the Compass and points to the key role of the High Representative, despite the institutional constraints of the office. The article also highlights the usefulness of MSA for studying foreign policy change and, in particular, the dynamics between entrepreneurs.}, language = {en} } @article{Sus, author = {Sus, Monika}, title = {How does delegation structure shape agent discretion in EU foreign policy? Evidence from the Normandy Format and the Contact Group on Libya}, series = {Contemporary Security Policy}, volume = {44}, journal = {Contemporary Security Policy}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1080/13523260.2022.2148942}, pages = {67 -- 96}, abstract = {Informal groupings have proliferated in EU foreign policy over the past decade, despite the enhanced role of the High Representative tasked with ensuring the coherence of this policy domain under the Lisbon Treaty. This article analyzes how the decision of select EU member states to act on certain policy issues through informal groupings, bypassing the EU framework, affects the High Representative's room for maneuver. Drawing on the principal-agent model, the emergence of informal groupings is conceptualized as a manifestation of pathological delegation, which undermines High Representative's role. The findings reveal two factors that may nevertheless increase the agent's discretion in cases of delegation anomalies: the low heterogeneity of member state preferences toward the informal grouping and the interaction between agents in the same domain, facilitating agent's performance. By examining agent's discretion when delegation anomalies arise, the article may be useful for scholars investigating delegation and agency in international organizations.}, language = {en} } @article{Sus, author = {Sus, Monika}, title = {Status-seeking in wartime: Poland's leadership aspirations and the response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine}, series = {The British Journal of Politics and International Relations}, journal = {The British Journal of Politics and International Relations}, publisher = {SAGE Publications}, doi = {10.1177/13691481251329767}, abstract = {Poland's response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was decisive, driven by strong leadership aspirations. While many European states reassessed their foreign policy priorities, Poland positioned itself as a key player in shaping the Western response. Providing military aid before the invasion and advocating for strong NATO and EU measures, Poland sought to assert its status as a regional leader. To explain Poland's response, this article employs neoclassical realism and argues that it was shaped by the concurrent presence of four domestic factors: Polish leaders' perception of their country's undervalued role in Europe, a strategic culture emphasizing deterrence and strong U.S. ties, a centralized institutional structure that enabled swift decision-making, and a broad societal consensus viewing Russia as an existential threat. By systematically analyzing primary sources - including official strategic and defense documents, speeches, and public statements - it demonstrates how these factors filtered systemic pressures from the invasion and reinforced Poland's status-seeking behavior. The study further shows that Poland's foreign policy stance persisted beyond the December 2023 government transition, highlighting the enduring influence of domestic factors. While the new government maintained strong support for Ukraine, it recalibrated Poland's status-seeking efforts by prioritizing closer European integration and adjusting its diplomatic posture. This article contributes to the literature on European security by illustrating how domestic variables influence state behavior during geopolitical crises. Additionally, examining Poland's case enhances our understanding of how middle powers navigate systemic pressures through domestic considerations, ultimately shaping their foreign policy direction.}, language = {en} } @article{MichaelsSus, author = {Michaels, Eva and Sus, Monika}, title = {(Not) Coming of age? Unpacking the European Union's quest for strategic autonomy in security and defence}, series = {European Security}, volume = {33}, journal = {European Security}, number = {3}, publisher = {Informa UK Limited}, doi = {10.1080/09662839.2024.2376603}, pages = {383 -- 405}, abstract = {Russia's large-scale aggression against Ukraine brought back the debate about the European Union's strategic autonomy ambitions in security and defence. The notion had slipped off the EU's radar following the post-2016 thematic shift in strategic autonomy discussions to global economic interdependencies. Our article contributes to an appraisal of the strategic autonomy debate in security and defence since Russia's full invasion of Ukraine, while also tracing the emergence and revival of the concept over the past 25 years. By unpacking the EU's quest for strategic autonomy as a process of maturation since the late 1990s, we examine the extent to which the EU has grown into an autonomous security and defence actor. We further discuss the implications of maturation for EU security and defence policy. Drawing on 20 semi-structured interviews with policymakers and foreign policy experts in seven member states, our study brings the underexplored aspect of national acceptability of EU external action to the fore. We show that significant progress has been made regarding both ideational and material aspects of EU security and defence policy. Yet, prevailing differences in underlying national beliefs, perceptions and goals about security and defence continue to hamper the Union's further maturation.}, language = {en} } @article{AmadioVicereSus, author = {Amadio Vicer{\´e}, Maria Giulia and Sus, Monika}, title = {Organizing European security through informal groups: insights from the European Union's response to the Russian war in Ukraine}, series = {International Politics}, journal = {International Politics}, publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, issn = {1384-5748}, doi = {10.1057/s41311-024-00657-7}, abstract = {In addition to joint activities undertaken via the EU institutional framework in response to the Russian war in Ukraine, EU countries also shaped the broader European security architecture through informal groups. These groups, which lack formal institutional structures, allow EU member states to coordinate activities to pursue common objectives. Despite the rapidly growing literature on informal groups, their occurrence and relevance in the wake of the outbreak of war in Ukraine remain understudied. This study examines informal groups' compositions, motivations, and reflects on their relevance for the European security architecture. It suggests that by resorting to informal groups, EU member states have organized the European security order functionally and geographically into several formats. By doing so, they have fostered compartmentalized multilateralism, contributing to functional relations between various layers of European security order.}, language = {en} } @techreport{AdebahrSazCarranzaSus, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Adebahr, Cornelius and Saz-Carranza, {\´A}ngel and Sus, Monika}, title = {How to make the EU's defence commissioner work}, number = {August 1, 2024}, language = {en} } @article{Sus, author = {Sus, Monika}, title = {Dare scholars look to the future? Academia and strategic foresight for the European Union's foreign policy}, series = {European Law Journal}, volume = {30}, journal = {European Law Journal}, number = {3}, publisher = {Wiley}, doi = {10.1111/eulj.12523}, pages = {434 -- 442}, abstract = {Drawing on examples of foresight projects situated at the interface between academia and foreign policy practice, this article reflects on the role of academics in informing the practice of foreign policy-making in the EU. The study explores why academics have rarely engaged in foresight over the past two decades and why this has changed in recent years. It argues that this shift is triggered, on the one hand, by the strategic blunders of the last decade and, on the other hand, by the conceptual developments within the disciplines of political science or international relations. After demonstrating the growing trend of scholarly engagement in foresight with a series of illustrative examples, the article discusses the added value and limitations of academic-generated foresight for EU foreign policy. Taking these into account, the analysis indicates best practice solutions, such as foresight exercises, with the joint involvement of researchers and policymakers.}, language = {en} } @article{BorońskaHryniewieckaSus, author = {Borońska-Hryniewiecka, Karolina and Sus, Monika}, title = {The illusion of convergence? Exploring the patterns of (de-) politicisation of Russia's war against Ukraine in the European Parliament}, series = {Journal of European Integration}, volume = {48}, journal = {Journal of European Integration}, number = {2}, publisher = {Informa UK Limited}, doi = {10.1080/07036337.2026.2619425}, pages = {209 -- 227}, abstract = {The full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 not only reshaped national security considerations but also influenced debates in the European Parliament (EP). This article examines how this external shock shaped supranational political discourse in the EP between 2022 and 2024. While crises often generate temporary depoliticising effects, we find that these were conditional and context-dependent. Based on a thematic discourse analysis of EP plenary debates, we show that support for Ukraine remained depoliticised, marked by broad cross-party consensus. However, politicisation re-emerged when the war was framed as an opportunity for EU institutional reform. Unusually, it was mainstream rather than challenger actors who used this strategic window to promote deeper integration. By demonstrating that crises do not automatically generate convergence but instead produce selective politicisation across issues, our findings advance debates on EU crisis governance. We show that even existential security shocks may strengthen coordination without prompting far-reaching institutional change.}, language = {en} }