Abstract
If one can recollect one of the main innovations of the aborted Constitutional treaty, it is undoubtedly, the appointment of an EU Foreign Minister. It is to be noted that if the accurate denomination and definition of a ?Union Minister for Foreign Affairs' was buried with the constitutional treaty which followed the French and Dutch with no answers to referenda, then its position and functions were salvaged in the Lisbon treaty. Further, the salvaged position and functions were still not ratified by the 27 Member States. Instead of being christened as ?Foreign Minister', he/she would have formally and officially been referred to as ?High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.' As the duties and functions of the High representative for the CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) and the Commissioner for external relations have been merged, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (he/she) will operate in their positions as well and the offices of the representative of the CFSP and the Commissioner will cease to operate. The situation in today's European Union remains unchanged as against what it was seven years ago when the Convention for the future of Europe was initiated. The bottlenecks in the foreign policies of the EU are broadly linked to the issues of ?legitimacy", ?coherence', and ?effectiveness' (Everts and Keohane, 2003). Considering this as the starting point in the diagnosis, the issue lies in proving that the appointment of an EU foreign minister will help improve these three most vital burning issues (atleast to some extent). If this point is ratified, then one can wholeheartedly believe that there is a need for a Foreign Union Minister to administer the EU member states and its functioning.
