The Politico-Military Dynamics of European Crisis Response Operations (original) (raw)
Related papers
2011
"This book’s chapters are framed within three sections, linked by an introduction (Chapter 1) and a conclusion (Chapter 12). The first section (Looking forward), consisting of a single chapter, highlights the practical transformation that the EU is likely to undergo with the establishment of the European External Action Service foreseen by the Lisbon Treaty. This analysis is important to the extent that it introduces the changes which are expected to influence the EU’s external action and suggests the direction in which these may take the EU. The second section (chapters 3-5) (Challenges from the EU’s close and wider neighbourhood: External action vis-à-vis Russia, China end Iran) looks at some of the relations that the EU is concerned about because of their interference with its own regional and wider security. Russia, China and Iran are considered here in the light of these countries’ specific way of relating to international affairs. The third section (chapters 6-11) (The military: Legal aspects, processes and action, and Peace and Security Policy in Africa) focuses on the EU and its military action within the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy and inspects the EU’s commitment to bring peace to the African region. Whilst each contribution can be read separately to the advantage of the reader, combined they offer a richer vision of EU engagement (or not) in approaching security issues, and of whether the EU is developing an innovative policy. In some instances there may be overlapping analyses which inevitably bear repetitions, such as in chapters 7 and 8 both focusing on the same CSDP operation. However chapter 7, from the legal expert’s eye, deals with the legislative aspects and with the extent to which the design and implementation of that CSDP action is coherent with the commitments and values expressed by the EU in the ESS, while chapter 8 is the expression of a EU official involved in the institutional control and coordination of that CSDP mission. In some other occasions, there may be different judgements of the same CSDP operations (e.g. chapter 10 and 11) which are due to different angles of observation and experience. Chapter 2, by Antonio Missiroli, provides the functional context within which the EU’s external action is expected to evolve. Per se, it offers a sound introduction to the idea of the challenges that the EU ought to confront, and the progress that it should secure to increase its influence and advance its position within an international system which is made rather more complex by the interaction of the forces and ad hoc alliances. Missiroli argues, that with the operational launch of the European External Action Service, a year after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, a key piece of the new EU external action puzzle falls into place. From now on, the game is likely to change, internally and externally. Yet, the change will be gradual and its pace will depend on a number of political and institutional factors. This chapter analyses the preparatory steps that, throughout 2010, led to the eventual establishment of the new service, the positions and stakes of the main players, and the uncertainties that still linger in its development. Missiroli views the European External Action Service from the perspective of a crucial test of the EU’s capacity to operate more effectively in the international scene, as well as for a more pragmatic and “hybrid” approach to its institutional and policy set up. In Chapter 3, Laure Delcour focuses on the EU-Russia partnership, explaining that the 2008 Georgian conflict is widely considered a watershed moment in EU-Russia relations for three reasons. She argues, instead, that that conflict does not represent per se a turning point in the relations between the two actors. It is a further illustration of the existing flaws currently underlying the strategic partnership. To a large extent, the framework of EU-Russia relations, designed in the early 2000s, has proved ineffective for tackling issues of common interest, one of the most important being security in the shared neighbourhood. However such ineffectiveness, rather than demonstrating the inadequacy of the institutional framework underpinning their partnership, reflects the deep divergences between the two parties regarding their agendas and their principles. This chapter’s examines the emergence of multilateralism as a joint EU-Russia response to a growing interdependence, and highlights the tension stemming from different conceptions of multilateralism. Through examples relating to conflict resolution, energy and security architecture, it shows that the agreed-upon multilateral frameworks and principles have largely remained empty shells in the EU-Russia partnership. In Chapter 4, Jing Men offers a vision of the incompatibility of China and the EU as partners. She questions the causes of the problems, and whether these can be overcome, and the partnership maintained despite the increasing difficulties. The chapter, first, looks at the EU’s promotion of norms in China: its pressure on the Chinese authorities to improve human rights and the tools that it has at hand while negotiating with Beijing. It then examines how pragmatism has been developed in China, and analyses China’s different understandings of human rights and national sovereignty. Finally, it uncovers whether there is any convergence between the normative power and the pragmatic player, before looking at the prospects for EU-China relations. In Chapter 5, Roxane Farmanfarmaian offers an assessment of the European role on the dialogue with Iran. She situates the discussion within the theoretical debate regarding the EU’s normative foreign policy goals, means and impacts. The first section considers not only the EU’s shift in behaviour toward non-normative approaches in other settings within the Middle East and North Africa but, likewise, the attendant loss of influence to affect the conflicts with which it is beset. The second section reviews the key points of the exchange between the E3 (France, Britain and Germany) and Iran during the 2002-2004 period, when European mediation used civilian means to construct policy, reaping gains from the Iranian negotiations, though opening up a gap between the US and EU positions. The third section analyses the breakdown in early 2005 that introduced conditionality into the negotiations, shifting to offers with sanctions under the authority of the United Nations Security Council and the P5+1 (the five permanent members plus Germany). The prioritization of the trans-Atlantic relationship, coupled with the adoption of securitizing policies, engaged the EU mediation efforts, under the direction of the High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Solana, in increasingly coercive measures. The fourth section addresses the growing ineffectiveness of the EU-designed initiatives demanding suspension as a condition of negotiations, and the intercession of other players adopting normative positions to achieve progress. In particular, the discussion revolves around the Turkey-Brazil nuclear fuel exchange deal, towards which the EU and US acted as spoilers in the face of a substantive achievement over which they had no influence. This provides the context in which to analyze the EU’s shifting role, and its loss of initiative and influence. In substituting pressure for persuasion, this chapter’s author argues that no further progress has been achieved. Not only have Iran’s capabilities increased substantially, but the EU’s ability to work with it to achieve agreement rather than increasing international sanctions and friction has fallen. Farmanfarmaian suggests that, if the EU exercises the civilian power at its disposal, a return to direct engagement with Iran concerning its nuclear dilemma could lead to a better understanding of Iran’s motivations (whether it plans on developing the bomb, or the latent capability). However, by prioritizing the trans-Atlantic relationship over the exercise of its own normative goals, the EU has instead become increasingly unable to effect either the psychological or practical developments in this fast shifting conflict. Chapter 6 and the following turn from the challenges of the EU’s enlarged neighbourhood proper to the specifics of the EU’s military crisis management. In chapter 6, Frederik Naert’s description of the development of the legislative framework within which the CSDP becomes operative is essential to the understanding of the procedural and incremental changes prompted by the EU to deal with the foreign policy security and defence issues confronting Europe. Naert explains that the CSDP has mainly manifested itself through a wide array of civilian and military crisis management actions. In the period from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2009, some 22 operations were launched, including 6 military, 15 civilian and one mixed civil-military operations. His overview of the norms addresses features of the EU law, covers the main international law and deals with domestic law, including the law of both the sending States and the Host State. The author discusses the role and importance of the legal aspects of EU military operations. Etc.
Collateral Damage: How EU Internal Policies Shape Crises and Conflict Abroad
Rome, IAI, December 2021, 36 p. (JOINT Research Papers ; 5), 2021
Europe is increasingly affected by conflicts in its neighbourhood, but its ability to prevent and resolve them remains limited. This dilemma underlines the need for European foreign and security policy to make optimal use of tools, assets and resources available. The EU’s main framework to do so, the Integrated Approach to Conflicts and Crises, emphasises traditionally external policy sectors such as diplomacy, defence and development cooperation, but neglects tools and policy sectors predominantly understood as internal. Conceptually, the EU has acknowledged the need to employ the entire range of tools and instruments in its whole-of-governance approach to conflict, but when it comes to implementation, internal policy areas are barely part of the equation. A few policy areas with obvious internal-external linkages such as migration, energy or climate are more advanced conceptually. However, a systematic integration of internal policy areas into the calculus of how EU policy impacts human security abroad remains absent.
Rethinking Europe’s external relations in an age of global turmoil: an introduction
International Politics, 2017
The outlook for Europe's external relations has never looked so uncertain in the postcold war era. A series of internal and external shocks-from the Eurozone crisis to the UK's Brexit referendum and civil wars and external interventions on Europe's borders-have shaken the EU to its foundations. Against a backdrop of external insecurity and global power shifts abroad, and institutional crisis and strategic drift at home, this article introduces the main themes and questions that guide the contributions to this special issue: First, how have recent transformations of the international system-declining Western dominance, a shift from unipolarity to multipolarity, and the return of geopolitical competition-affected Europe's search for stability, security and influence in global affairs? Second, how have external perceptions of the EU's position, power and influence in global affairs changed in recent years, particularly in response to ongoing crises in the EU's internal governance? And third, how can the EU respond to the dramatically altered external environment and newly arising threats, and to what extent does the new EU Global Strategy of 2016 meet the challenges that the continent faces?
The Entire World's a Stage: The Eu's Strategic Presence in the Contemporary International Arena
2011
In the last ten years, an exceptional and diverse series of impacting events-international terrorism, violent conflict situations, war, environmental and natural crises, coups, assassinations and international disputes and challenges-have unfolded. As higher expectations of international bodies in responding to emerging challenges within the international system continue to surface, the shifting structures of actors that deal with those challenges can be readily observed. With the global conflict map undergoing strident change, the focus of strategic analysts is shifting to the global role of the European Union (EU). The EU is seen, more than ever, as a viable and legitimate player that can appropriately respond to existing and anticipated crises in a coherent and coordinated manner, particularly with the application of military force. This article addresses the shifting power structures of the EU as it becomes oriented toward a more unique role that utilizes a 'soft-hard' p...
Book Review: New Approaches to EU Foreign Policy
Marmara Journal of European Studies (MJES), 2017
Language: English 282 pages ISBN: 978-0-415-81366-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-77115-1 (ebk) Lisbon Treaty, the last revision Treaty of the EU, has provided significant changes in the EU foreign policy system both in the institutional, financial and policy-making framework. The volume, taking its starting point from the idea of the current challenges the EU faces in foreign policy, and institutional developments took place after the Lisbon Treaty, issues of legitimacy, constitutionalization and parliamentarisation of the EUFP/CFSP, the very complex and analytical object was put under research presenting newer approaches to EU foreign policy such as delegation approach, the parliamentarisation approach, post-modern perspective on foreign policy. This book, which is edited, by Maciej Wilga and Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski has three consecutive parts addressing these issues in an analytical, empirical and comparative way. It is thus a valuable contribution to EU literature, putting together the chapters of which were written between 2011-2013.
The Study of EU Foreign Policy: Between International Relations and European Studies
Rethinking European Union foreign …, 2004
The European Union‟s foreign policy is an ongoing puzzle encompassing a number of paradoxes. The membership of the enlarging European Union has set itself ever more ambitious goals in the field of foreign policy-making, yet at the same time each member state continues to guard their ability to conduct an independent foreign policy. As far as the EU‟s ambitions are concerned, basic foreign policy co-operation led first to co-ordination, and later the goal of creating a „common‟ foreign policy. However, behind each raised level of ambition was an unsatisfying reality of continuing policy incoherence and ineffectiveness. Similarly, early ambitions that Europe should develop a single foreign policy „voice‟ have been supplanted by aspirations to create a common security and defence policy – even as the Union‟s voice continues to be often fragmented and frequently tentative in its expression. Moreover, while the desire to maintain the national veto over decision-making within the „second pillar‟ of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) remains, it is increasingly challenged by the realisation that without extended use of qualified majority voting a common policy may prove illusory.