The European Security Strategy : Reinvigorate, Revise or Reinvent? (original) (raw)
Related papers
The European Security Strategy: a framework for EU security interests?
International Peacekeeping, 2004
USNS emphasises the notion of 'pre-emption', a unilateralist approach to international security; the ESS commits the EU to a multilateral approach to security challenges, embodied in international law and the UN Charter. Both the ESS and the USNSS embrace a 'comprehensive concept of security' in proposing to tackle common security threats by drawing on a developed toolbox. The ESS does prescribe an alternative approach to 'unilateralism'. However, it presently provides a benchmark to assess European responses to international security rather than describe a manifest new approach.
Nowadays European Union is facing challenges of immigration, the threat of radicalization, downturns in the fiscal and monetary policies, as well as the discussions on how to build bridges with the UK after Brexit. Such concerns are crucial for understanding the EU's political and economic landscape, shaping global security issues as well. The article attempts to analyze the circumstances favoring the implementation of the EU's Global Strategy that served to be strategic reality-checks upon how to bring stability and security to Europe. It shapes the period from the origins of the European security strategies till the new era of the EU presented by EU Global Strategy in 2016. The article questions weather the political will is deeply essential for the EU to remain solid tackling economic and political challenges. Therefore, the article is divided in two parts, namely: 1) the evolution of the EU security strategies; 2) the hybrid challenges for Europe shaped by EU Global Strategy. It is concluded that the EU should perceive the concept of the adaptability as pivotal in order to find credible and fit-for-purpose solutions and create the full-fledged EU Global Strategy. The latter still needs to be adapted to the civilian and integrated capabilities in order to become a real global strategy.
This report briefly examines the interplay between the European security strategic vision and capabilities, its institutional architecture (Member States & EU institutions) and policy implementation practices (case studies), with a particular focus on the EU consular affairs, EU democracy promotion and EU engagement in frozen conflicts under the Neighbourhood Policy (Appendices 1-3). This report contends that in order for the EU to develop an effective and sustainable global security strategy, it first, has to reconcile its vision and understanding of strategic priorities within its inter and intra-institutional settings. Second, a serious effort is required to develop an integrated view on European security, which will not only focus on the internal dimensions of the EU Security strategy (capabilities), but will equally draw on its external aspects - a genuine inclusive approach that would blur internal and external dimensions of security. For this to succeed a deeper understanding of a partnership-building process (especially of strategic partnership) is needed. Finally, while legitimation of the new security vision is essential within the EU (by way of security consultative forums), a greater emphasis should be placed on its external environment, which must not only include a crosscutting approach to multiple policy instruments as suggested by the EEAs, but more essentially, their connection with the interests and needs of third parties. Case-studies in appendices elaborate further on some specific aspects of EU security within the eastern neighbourhood context.
A Tragic Lack of Ambitions: Why EU Security Policy is no Strategy
Contemporary Security Policy, 2013
Tools of classical strategic analysis support distinctive explanations for the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the European Union. Looking at the articulation between ends, ways, and means offers a perspective on the CSDP that is different from the approaches usually favoured by European Union specialists or even security studies scholars. In particular, it is argued here that the CSDP is no strategy, and little more than an institutional make-up for the lack of strategic thinking within the European Union. First, I show that the CSDP is not European security, and that the EU security policy is astonishingly absent from the security challenges facing Europe. Second, I argue that this situation stems from a lack of a political project within the European Union. I refer to the classical distinction made by Hans Morgenthau between pouvoir and puissance to show that, short of a political project, we will not see a strategic CSDP any time soon.
Setting the scene: from a fragmented to more integrated European Security Strategy In this paper we will briefly examine the interplay between the European security strategic vision, its institutional architecture and policy implementation practices. In what follows below, we will first offer a short overview of the major milestones in the development of the EU’s security strategy, and then will examine the existing disconnects and opportunities for fostering a coherent and more inclusive security discourse to enable the EU to become a global and influential player.
The Deficiencies, Mistakes and Contradictions of the New EU Foreign and Security Strategy
2016
CERPESC 16/E/03/2016 - 20 December 2016 ; The events of the last 20 years, the first operations and missions, show that the Common Security and Defense Policy, the CSDP (the European Security and Defense Policy: the ESDP, before 2009) does not exist only on paper. Europe must act to prevent wars and crises or to stop them. The European Union and its member countries are confronted with decisive choices for the future of Europe as a political entity. The external (and above all, energy) dependence of the Union is particularly emphasized by the European security strategies. The documents that function as strategies (the first, the 2003 ESS and the most recent, 2016 EUGS) of the European Union are quite poor in terms of content and objectives. They list the challenges, without drafting the places and means of the overall strategic presence. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the major development issues of EU strategic thinking during the period 2003-2016. Can we talk about development, stagnation, or devolution? Is the new strategy capable of fulfilling its role and can really serve as the basis of our ambitions?