ISA ANNUAL CONVENTION 2015 REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE OF CULTURE: THE EU FOREIGN POLICY AND THE DIVERSITY OF CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS Antonios Vlassis, Center for International Relations Studies (CEFIR), University of Liège, FNRS. Introduction Convention on diversity of cultural expressions (CDCE) adopted by UNESCO in 2005, main international instrument of the global governance of cultural industries. Cultural policies, specificity of cultural goods and services, international cultural cooperation, culture in development policies. Internal cultural acquis and the European Commission’s external competences towards cultural affairs. The EU participated as a single entity within the intergovernmental UNESCO arena. The Commission, leading actor for the CDCE’s adoption. Introduction Research question: What is at issue is of why and how the EU foreign policy uses the CDCE and its normative framework, of what purposes, and of how the CDCE influences the EU foreign cultural policy (EUFCP) and its objectives. European Commission, point of departure for highlighting the links between regional organizations and international norms. Structure: Review on the findings of the recent theoretical literature; Tease out empirically and qualitatively the links between the EU foreign policy and the CDCE; Institutional and decision-making limits of the Commission regarding the promotion of the CDCE. A. Review of theoretical literature ‘Singleness’ and ‘unitariness’ of the EU foreign policy, degrees of actorness of the EU in external relations. “Framing actor”, “civilian power”, “global actor”, “global governor”, “normative and ethical actor”… focusing on policy outcomes rather than on policy process, overestimating perhaps the evolving EU’s influence in world affairs. The institutional and law features of the CDCE and its implementation. The ways which the global governance of culture interplays with regional organizations in general and, in particular the implications between the EU foreign policy and the CDCE. B. European Commission, cultural cooperation and CDCE: a moment of political emancipation? Towards an International Instrument on Cultural Diversity 2003 European Agenda for culture 2007 Conclusions on the promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue in the external relations of the Union and its Member States 2008 Resolution on the cultural dimensions of the EU’s external actions 2011 Euromed Audiovisual Program, ACP Cultures+ Program, Eastern Partnership Culture Program, MERCOSUR Audiovisual. B. European Commission, cultural cooperation and CDCE: a moment of political emancipation? The Protocols on Cultural Cooperation EU-CARIFORUM 2008, EU-Korea 2009, EU-Central America 2010, EU-Peru/Colombia 2011. Explicit reference to the CDCE. Stipulate that the countries, which have not yet ratified the CDCE, intend to do so expeditiously. Implement the CDCE framework, and especially its Articles 14 (Cooperation for development), 15 (Collaborative arrangements) and 16 (Preferential treatment for developing countries). Transnational administration in terms of cultural industries: UNESCOEuropean Commission and the creation of an expert facility project to make operational the CDCE at the country level (2010). C. The institutional and decision-making limits of the European Commission as a leading norm exporter Promoting the CDCE without political support Protocols on Cultural Cooperation and strong reluctance from the EU culture organizations and France. Treat the CDCE as a selling point for proceeding with trade deals and gain concessions in other economic areas. Audiovisual co-productions are guarded by national actors. French communication and specific proposals for the EUFCP. A top-down building of the Protocols hinders the effective implementation of their provisions. C. The institutional and decision-making limits of the European Commission as a leading norm exporter Negotiations on TTIP between US and EU. The Commission and the maximization of trade efficiency, inclusion of audiovisual services – and especially digital audiovisual services – in the agenda, Project of EU mandate and different interpretation on the normative framework of the CDCE. Final mandate: exclusion of cultural services following the positions of France, European Parliament, EU culture organizations, and other countries. Culture as a post-2015 goal in UN development agenda: the establishment of a big international coalition (UNESCO, China, culture NGOs, developing countries), advocacy strategies based on the CDCE’s norms. The European Commission, completely absent from this debate. Concluding remarks CDCE as a legal basis and policy framework: opportunity for the European Commission to establish itself as a foreign policy actor in cultural affairs. Preference to the normative basis of the global governance of culture. Key role for the CDCE’s promotion in third countries. EU as a regional actor in cultural affairs. Lack of social support, mistrust between Commission and culture organizations. Actorness depending on the balance between intergovernmentalism method and the Community. Members states keeping strong powers in the decision-making process, especially, France, key and primary actor throughout the agenda setting process. Actorness depending on the sensitiveness of the issue and on the context that the EUFCP is made. Unitary regional actor, disaggregated global entity or salient international absence.