Should consensus be the gold standard for EU decision-making in international fora? From Brussels to Geneva, EU’s global role at FCTC COP11

In the shifting landscape of global governance, the European Union continues to position itself as a strategic actor in multilateral negotiations. Its presence at international conferences is not merely procedural; it reflects a broader ambition to shape global standards. The EU is not just a participant, but a voice, a model, and often a driver of high regulatory benchmark. Its external action is grounded in a complex balance between supranational coordination and respect for national prerogatives- an equilibrium increasingly tested in high-stakes negotiations.

The EU’s ability to act internationally is defined by the principles of conferral of powers and division of competences, as outlined in the Treaties. These principles ensure that the Union operates only within the limits of authority conferred upon it by its Member States, preserving national sovereignty while enabling collective action. This institutional architecture is not only foundational—it is instrumental in determining how the EU formulates and represents its positions in global fora.

The EU’s internal regulatory framework—developed through decades of policymaking—is marked by legal precision, stakeholder engagement, and adaptability. It spans diverse sectors, including industrial policy, digital markets, environmental protection, and public health. As global challenges become more interconnected, the EU’s regulatory experience offers a valuable reference point for international convergence, especially where coherent and future-oriented approaches are needed.

However, the EU’s external representation must remain aligned with its internal governance. Defining common positions requires coordination between the European Commission and the Council, with the latter representing Member States and playing a decisive role in areas of shared or supporting competence. In these cases, the EU may assist or coordinate national efforts, without replacing national laws. The consensus method, traditionally adopted in such contexts, has proven effective in maintaining unity and legitimacy, especially when negotiations touch upon sensitive policy domains.

Consensus is more than a procedural tool—it is the institutional expression of unity among diverse Member States. It allows for a balanced coordination process, particularly in areas where national perspectives are especially relevant. This approach has proven effective in maintaining unity and credibility, especially when dealing with complex or sensitive policy areas.

A concrete illustration is the EU’s preparation for the 11th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP11) to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), scheduled for November 2025 in Geneva. The FCTC is a mixed agreement, involving both the EU and its Member States. This dual competence requires a coordinated mandate negotiated between the European Commission and the Council, where consensus plays a decisive role.

The COP11 agenda includes complex and heterogeneous items, ranging from liability and environmental protection to product regulation and harm reduction narratives. Several of these topics fall outside the current EU regulatory framework, raising concerns about the potential expansion of external competences. At the last COP session in Panama (February 2024), an unprecedented hybrid decision-making model was introduced for the adoption of the EU position for the negotiations, applying qualified majority voting to certain items. This departure from the consensus method was criticized from several Member States, namely by Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Romania and Slovakia, who emphasized the need to preserve the consensus as the most appropriate decision-making rule at international level.

During the past days, this position has been by the same group of like-minded Member States underling the importance of reaffirming consensus as the guiding principle in the context of COP11.

Moreover, the preparatory documents published ahead of COP11 include proposals of extreme nature with potentially severe impacts. Among them are “environmental measures” suggesting a ban on filters for tobacco products, which would result in a de facto ban on entire product categories. Additionally, significant restrictions on the distribution system are being considered, including a reduction in legal distribution channels. Such proposals risk undermining robust and efficient national frameworks, such as the Italian licensing system, which is widely recognized as a best practice for its ability to avoid the spread of illicit trade, ensuring regulatory control, and market stability through a structured and legally compliant distribution network.

In this context, the issue of pre-emption of EU directives must be addressed upfront. It is essential that the EU does not commit to international obligations that could pre-empt or constrain ongoing legislative processes within the Union. These processes must unfold with the full involvement of all relevant EU institutions, including the European Parliament, the most legitimate actor elected by European citizens and co-legislator in the EU system.

The case of COP11 underscores the challenges of applying rigid procedural rules in contexts where competences are intertwined and national sensitivities are high. Attempting to separate items by voting method—consensus for some, qualified majority for others—has proven impractical. The issues addressed are cross-cutting, and their implications extend beyond the initial scope of discussion. In such scenarios, consensus is not only preferable—it is necessary.

Maintaining the consensus method ensures that all Member States are actively involved in shaping the EU’s external voice. It reinforces the legitimacy of EU action, particularly when commitments made at the international level could influence ongoing legislative processes within the Union. In the case of tobacco control, where key directives are under revision, consensus protects the integrity of internal governance and prevents premature external commitments

As the EU continues to engage in multilateral negotiations, the principle of consensus remains central to its institutional identity. It is the foundation on which unity is built, legitimacy is preserved, and influence is exercised. In a fragmented global landscape, consensus offers the EU a stable and credible platform from which to lead—not by imposition, but by coordination.

Two questions remain open: will the European Commission seek to reintroduce this unusual hybrid approach at COP11, despite the Member States concerns? And what precedent might this set for future negotiations in other sensitive areas of EU external action, if positions are expressed without unanimity?

In a time when unity is the EU’s strongest currency on the global stage, bypassing consensus risks undermining both internal cohesion and external credibility. The method matters: without consensus, there is no unity – and without unity, the EU risks losing its most authoritative voice internationally.