The European Union as Crisis Manager: Patterns and Prospects, by Arjen Boin, Magnus Ekengren, and Mark Rhinard

Abstract

Arjen Boin, Magnus Ekengren, and Mark Rhinard The European Union as Crisis Manager: Patterns and Prospects Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 195 pp., $85.00 (cloth) ISBN: 978-1-107-68028-9The emergence of the European Union as a regional and international security provider came as a surprise to many. Although it was once thought to occupy a realm beyond the pressures of integration, recent developments in the area of European security and defence have proven that this is not the case. With 24 civilian and military missions under its belt as of 2003, the EU has emerged on the international stage as a key player in crisis management. But, considering the long-standing belief that states are the international actors who provide security, what role is there for the European Union? And to what extent and - perhaps more importantly - how has crisis management become institutionalized in the European Union?These are the central questions driving The European Union as Crisis Manager: Patterns and Prospects by Arjen Boin, Magnus Ekengren, and Mark Rhinard. With considerable academic and policy expertise in the areas of international security and crisis management, these authors are well placed to begin exploring these questions.1 In an effort to provide answers, the authors examine the institutionalization of EU crisis management capabilities in three crisis domains: (1) national crises; (2) external crises; (3) trans-boundary crises. Each of these crisis domains is afforded a separate chapter, with the final chapter offering insight and estimations as to what the future may hold for EU crisis management.The central argument of this book is that EU crisis management has become institutionalized in the absence of an overarching grand strategy. The authors conceive of institutionalization as being measureable in three areas: (1) regulatory output; (2) network configurations; and (3) level of legitimacy. By measuring institutionalization in this capacity, the authors are able to capture the complexity of institutional interactions at the European level by considering institutions from both a European and an intergovernmental perspective. Their analytical account of crisis management institutionalization is therefore not teleological. Nor do they construe it as a random process. They argue instead that crisis management in the EU, in many respects, can be defined as a process of mission creep, wherein an institution not originally intended to act in a crisis management capacity nevertheless came to fulfill that role.The main strength of this book lies in its scope. Providing a comprehensive overview of EU crisis management capabilities is no small feat. In spite of the monumental task, the authors succeed in identifying a vast array of institutions, mechanisms, and capabilities, some of whose original purposes were unrelated to areas of crisis management. …