The European Security Strategy : Reinvigorate, Revise or Reinvent? (original) (raw)
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?
The EU's Internal Security Strategy: Living in the Shadow of its Past
The EU's Internal Security Strategy: Living in the Shadow of its Past, 2013
The adoption of an Internal Security Strategy in the European Union in the early months of 2010 raised not only expectations but also a number of questions from Brussels observers. Where did it come from? Who was behind the strategy? Does it represent the interests of the many actors involved in internal security cooperation? What will be its effect on actual cooperation and policy outcomes? This paper takes a historical perspective in helping to answer these questions. We examine the history of the ISS from three perspectives – its origin, its formulation, and its eventual content – and examine the extent to which those perspectives offer clues as to the likely impact of the ISS. Using some “ideal-type” benefits attributed to strategies generally – including political-symbolic benefits, cohering effects, and improved operational guidance – we assess whether the history of the ISS is likely to enable or constrain success. While further research is needed, our analysis of developments in the months after adoption of the ISS suggests that its history served to undermine its impact on cooperation generally and policymaking specifically.
The EU's Internal Security Strategy
The adoption of an Internal Security Strategy (ISS) in the European Union (EU) in 2010 raised not only expectations but also a number of questions from EU scholars and practitioners. Where did it come from? Who was behind the strategy? What will be its effect on actual cooperation and policy outcomes? This article takes a historical perspective to help answer these questions. We examine the ISS from three perspectives – its origin, its formulation and its eventual content – and examine how these perspectives illuminate the likely impact of the ISS. Using some ‘ideal-type’ benefits attributed to strategies generally – including political-symbolic benefits, cohering effects and operational guidance – we assess whether the history of the ISS is likely to enable or constrain success. While further research is needed, our analysis of developments in the months after adoption of the ISS suggests that its history may serve to undermine its impact on both cooperation and policy.
The European Union as a Security Actor: Moving Beyond the Second Pillar
Journal of Contemporary European Research, 2009
It is suggested in this article that there is a discrepancy between, on the one hand, literature that focuses on the European Union (EU) as a security actor and, on the other, contemporary security studies literature. This difference concerns the fact that the literature on the EU as a security actor treats security in a narrower sense than how it is approached in the literature on security studies. Over the past few decades, security studies literature has begun to fully acknowledge that the concept of security has broadened beyond traditional ‘hard’ security concerns and can encompass many different issues, for example the security implications of climate change. However, the literature on the EU as a security actor very often associates security only with the second pillar of the EU’s organisational structure; in particular the intergovernmental cooperation embodied by the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The main purp...
The EU’s internal security strategy: A historical perspective
Security Journal, 2014
The adoption of an Internal Security Strategy (ISS) in the European Union (EU) in 2010 raised not only expectations but also a number of questions from EU scholars and practitioners. Where did it come from? Who was behind the strategy? What will be its effect on actual cooperation and policy outcomes? This article takes a historical perspective to help answer these questions. We examine the ISS from three perspectivesits origin, its formulation and its eventual contentand examine how these perspectives illuminate the likely impact of the ISS. Using some 'ideal-type' benefits attributed to strategies generallyincluding political-symbolic benefits, cohering effects and operational guidancewe assess whether the history of the ISS is likely to enable or constrain success. While further research is needed, our analysis of developments in the months after adoption of the ISS suggests that its history may serve to undermine its impact on both cooperation and policy.
The EU’s Internal Security Strategy: an historical perspective
The adoption of an Internal Security Strategy (ISS) in the European Union (EU) in 2010 raised not only expectations but also a number of questions from EU scholars and practitioners. Where did it come from? Who was behind the strategy? What will be its effect on actual cooperation and policy outcomes? This article takes a historical perspective to help answer these questions. We examine the ISS from three perspectives – its origin, its formulation and its eventual content – and examine how these perspectives illuminate the likely impact of the ISS. Using some ‘ideal-type’ benefits attributed to strategies generally – including political-symbolic benefits, cohering effects and operational guidance – we assess whether the history of the ISS is likely to enable or constrain success. While further research is needed, our analysis of developments in the months after adoption of the ISS suggests that its history may serve to undermine its impact on both cooperation and policy.
The development of the European Union’s strategy and its security policy
2017
This paper is looking forward an answer to the question of the multilateralism in relation to the European Union (EU) security policy. Is it possible to say that multilateralism in this field of study has increased in the present times? Are the multilateral institutions of the contemporary international system evolving adequately or is there a setback in cooperation between international organisations (IGO) in terms of cooperation? All these questions are made in a context of globalisation. The interdependence between actors is every time bigger and the actions of one of them can provoke some effect in the other side of the globe disappearing the space-time dimension. New and more complex threats have emerged putting the European security into question.
EU between old and new security strategies approach
Bezbednosni dijalozi, 2017
In 2003 the European security strategy named A Secure Europe in a Better World was adopted. Since then, the security environment changed radically and the perception of security is different than before. The forces that prompted the changes are a result of the dynamics of contemporary globalization that has managed to reshape space, sovereignty and power. These changes bring with them new and often, unpredictable risks and hazards that increased in intensity and time. The global interconnectedness and interdependence between countries and peoples have contributed to greater mobility of tourists, terrorists, students and refugees. Over the past decade the European Union has faced numerous crises and turmoil which indirectly/directly affected its stability and prosperity. From conflicts in Africa, security tensions in Asia, economic crisis, climate change, supply of natural resources, partnerships and expansions, the stability of the Western Balkans, refugee crises to terrorist attacks by non-state actors. These complex events led to tensions and divisions within the Union and beyond, the same were a prelude to reforms of the existing security strategy. A moment of rethinking the new content will interact with the current and future political-security and economic-social environment. Through analysis of the old-new strategic documents in the area of security will acknowledge the extent to which the European Union has evolved. The focus is directed towards the questions whether the "old Europe" is prepared for the new security challenges, and whether strategic goals and principles correspond to the real situation in Europe and the world?
From the ESS to the EU Global Strategy: external policy, internal purpose
Contemporary Security Policy, 2016
Security strategies are important sites for narrating the EU into existence as a security actor. The unveiling of a new global strategy on foreign and security policy for the EU immediately post-Brexit could be conceived as a pledge to remain together as a Union for the purposes of contributing to global security in a particular way. This paper offers a brief stock-taking of the EU’s way of writing security from the European Security Strategy (2003) to the EU Global Strategy (2016). A concise exegesis of these documents exposes an interesting dynamic: as exercises in ordering the world, both strategic guidelines have turned out to be major exercises in ordering the self. The comparative snapshot shows the EU as increasingly anxious to prove its relevance for its own citizens, yet notably less confident about its actual convincingness as an ontological security framework for the EU’s constituent members over time.