{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019330855018587362, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.289719626168225, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Analytic Eclecticism and EU Foreign Policy (In)action

Twelve years after the European Union (EU) began to deploy crisis management operations, the underlying drivers are still disputed. This state of theory is partly due to the staleness of many theoretical debates in international relations (IR). In response, a number of scholars have recently called for analytic eclecticism. This paper sets out to provide an eclectic framework for the purpose of analysing EU foreign policy action. It argues that the interventions the EU has undertaken in the framework of its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) can best be explained by a two-stage model. Firstly, any potential EU action is assessed by EU governments against their general security policy dispositions, which are a function of both national and partisan preferences and belief systems. Secondly, against these broader dispositions, the positions of individual EU governments regarding CSDP actions are shaped by far more parochial assessments of the costs and benefits of these actions. The paper presents a conceptual framework and a plausibility probe of the two-stage model. In the conclusion we suggest a research agenda for analysing this interaction between governmental dispositions and more narrow governmental interests, and how they inform decisions on CSDP operations.