EU intergovernmental coordination and public health crises: a neo-intergovernmentalist mode of governance?

New-intergovernmentalism has brought to light the renewed importance of deliberative policymaking in the EU. Following this theoretical prior, we observe that since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, EU Member States once reluctant to engage in coordinating health threats management, have engaged in intensive inter-ministerial coordination in the Health Security Committee (HSC). This mode of governance is characterized by deliberation between health ministries, and policy learning guided by the EU’s technocratic structure in public health. Compared to the new mode of EU governance par excellence, the open method of coordination, this neo-intergovernementalist coordination presents a major difference: its goal is not the creation of soft law, but the implementation of crisis management measures. This mode is thus operational and executive rather than rule-making, which is one the reasons why it escapes current categorizations. We thus ask: does intensive coordination in the HSC correspond to a new mode of governance in the EU? The central claim of this paper is that intensive coordination in the HSC is an original neo-intergovernmentalist mode of governance, based on member states’ intensive coordination, for the purpose of crisis management. Its unique aspect is that coordination is supported by a host of agencies which participate in member states deliberations, thus differentiating this mode from intergovernmental bargaining, but that agencies are not enjoying de facto delegation, thus differentiating it from governance through de novo bodies. This study is based on process tracing HSC meetings since January 2020. We find the EU’s reliance on this mode of governance is an answer to COVID-19 that is both functional and political: the necessity to produce a coordinated answer has led member states to overcome their historical reluctance to coordinate over health threats management, albeit in an area where there is no formal coercion, but where scientific input is critical.