The UK and EU Foreign and Security Policy: An Optional Extra

This chapter takes stock of “the common” in the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. Doing so, the chapter analyses the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) both in terms of institutions and substantive policies. Showing how European Union (EU) foreign policies after the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty have partially been crafted without the necessary institutional consolidation, it sheds light on the many policy challenges that EU diplomacy is confronted with. Cases that this chapter analyses by way of illustration are policies in reaction to the so-called “Arab Spring” and the transnational war in Syria, the EU’s foreign policy performance at the Iran nuclear talks, and the impact of the “Ukraine crisis” on both the EU’s foreign policy manoeuvrability and the perception thereof in other parts of the world. Likewise, the 2015 refugee crisis has become a stress test for common foreign policy responses, and will therefore be assessed in its impact on the perception of EU foreign policy. Finally, the chapter also touches upon the Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and its intricate interplay between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) structures and EU autonomous defence instruments. The European Union’s credibility as a foreign policy actor, it will be argued, hinges on its ability to both formulate common strategies and policies internally, and to hold such policies up in the face of third parties in order to see such European foreign policies implemented beyond declaratory rhetoric.

In its aim to become a global security actor, the EU is increasingly undertaking civilian and military crisis missions all over the world. These missions are based on the European security and defence policy (ESDP) which forms an integral part of its common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The Treaty of Lisbon seems to mirror the Union’s global security ambitions as it addresses the European security and defence policy in a whole new treaty section. However, European missions still depend on willing Member States to make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of its security and defence policy. The purpose of this article is to examine the relationship between the European Union and the Member States in the fi eld of the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy and whether the Treaty of Lisbon manages to clarify the situation. What constraints, if any, do the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy impose on the Member States regarding the conduct of their national foreign policy? The article argues that the relationship between the EU and the Member States can only be determined after an examination of the binding nature of primary and secondary CFSP law as well as of international agreements concluded by the Union.

In the post-cold war era, with the creation of the European Union(EU) that included the Common Foreign and Security Policy(CFSP) as "second pillar", the European security order furnished the basis that led to the development its own foundation. Based on this, the EU started striving for independent military capability, while establishing cooperative relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO), establishing a political role in addition to a military role.<BR> With these points in mind, this paper researches the development of the CFSP that the EU executed, and analyzes the external relations and defense capabilities that the EU seeks to strengthen through the Treaty of Lisbon which came into effect recently.<BR> For this purpose, this paper examines the background and refinement process of the EU"s developing the CFSP in the new European security environment, and discusses aspects of promoting cooperation with NATO and striving to establish European Security and Defense Policy(ESDP) and independent military capability.<BR> Also, because the EU switched from ESDP to Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) in the Treaty of Lisbon to strengthen the European security strategy and established the European External Action Service(EEAS), this paper treats the contents of the CSDP that the EU strengthened within the category of CFSP through the Treaty of Lisbon, and makes a close inquiry into the main role of the “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affaires and Security Policy(HR/VP)” in describing the structure of EEAS.

THE ASPIRATION AMONG WEST EUROPEAN governments to co-operate not just on economic and trade policies but also on security and defence goes back to the years immediately after World War II.(f.1) The Brussels Treaty Organization (1948) and the subsequent Western European Union (1954) were essentially defensive alliances, while the European Defence Community (established in 1952 and abandoned in 1954) included the notion of a common defence policy and a pooled military capacity governed by a European defence and foreign policy council. Although none of these initiatives provided Europe with the concrete military protection it needed to navigate through the cold war, they are evidence of the fact that European governments have consistently sought channels of co-operation among themselves in addition to participating in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).European Political Co-operation allowed European Community members to formulate common foreign policy objectives in the 1970s and 1980s. Its successor when the cold war ended, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU), added to the policy pronouncements a capacity for modest joint actions. The Balkan wars of the early 1990s underscored for many Europeans the need to develop both political and military capacity in the only European military organization they had - the Western European Union (WEU) - to manage crises that did not really threaten the territorial security of any member of NATO.(f.2) Of course, the same crises also reinvigorated the Atlantic Alliance, ultimately modernizing its command structure and broadening its mission. As a result, the EU and NATO have begun to look like competitors in the crisis management area on the EU's borders.By mid-1996, NATO and the EU appeared to agree on a formula that would allow European initiatives within NATO. The EU would even be able to borrow expensive NATO assets, such as command and control, to undertake European-led, low intensity crisis management operations - the Petersberg tasks - through the WEU.(f.3) In 1997, at its summit in Amsterdam, the EU took over from the WEU both the responsibility for and the management of the Petersberg tasks.This model of constructive co-operation between the aspirations of the European Union and the military capacity of the Atlantic Alliance came to be known as the European Security and Defence Identity or ESDI-in-NATO. There was agreement in principle that NATO and the WEU would prepare for Combined Joint Task Force operations. Yet, the details of this arrangement were never satisfactorily worked out because the aspiration for European independence proved just as strong as the determination of NATO (and especially the Americans) to maintain control over the Alliance's mandate, operations, and assets.(f.4)In an historical meeting at St Malo in December 1998, the French and British governments agreed that the EU should create a 'capacity for autonomous action backed up by credible military forces.'(f.5) Building on this bilateral accord and fuelled by the Kosovo crisis, in December 1999 the EU announced a common European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), which includes the so-called Headline Goal, that is, the capacity to maintain a rapid reaction force of 60,000 troops with all the military requirements to launch sustainable crisis operations in the European area by 2003.(f.6)The surprising pace with which the EU developed new decision-making structures for ESDP and its apparent progress in assembling military forces for the rapid reaction force, all amidst the controversy over NATO's role in the air war against Serbia, has led to many defensive and 'turf-protecting' debates on both sides of the north Atlantic. The debate is about who decides - NATO or the European Union - when or where to intervene. Moreover, who will do the military planning and operational preparations for such potential interventions? Who can participate if the EU undertakes the action alone? …

: The Maastricht Treaty renamed the European Community the European Union (EU) and shaped the EU's three pillars. Pillar two, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), promoted cooperation among member states in foreign policy affairs. It also introduced the need to develop a common European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) that aimed at providing police and military capabilities to the CFSP. This idea represented a new element in the European integration process. ESDP was launched formally in June 1999, establishing ESDP's mission on the three Petersberg Tasks: (1) humanitarian and evacuation missions, (2) peacekeeping missions, and (3) combat missions for crisis management. The European Council agreed that the EU needed the capacity for autonomous action backed by credible military forces ready to respond to international crises without prejudice to actions by NATO. Thus, in Dec 1999, the European Rapid Reaction Force (RRF) was formed. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the development of the ESDP and to stress the need to consider Electronic Warfare (EW) as a militarily critical technology. The need for common operational concepts, doctrines, and training, especially in EW, becomes a necessity as Joint EU Armed Forces become ready to manage regional and international crises. However, a study of ESDP's current status shows that EW has been addressed but not properly emphasized. To demonstrate EW's weight, an imaginary scenario called Save Atlantia 2008 was created in which the Improved Many-on-Many (IMOM) software program was used to simulate EW effects. Specifically, the IMOM program was used to model the radar and tactical jamming system of the Joint European Air Force to determine its effectiveness against several radar early warning systems. A section describes the military capabilities of the EU and the nations that have taken the lead in those areas, including AAR, UAVs, CSAR, NBC protection, TBMD, and ISTAR. (12 tables, 37 figures, 99 refs.7

European Union (EU) security policies in Africa are at least as much determined by African realities as by the bureaucratic affiliations of the concerned EU actors. First, African security is a field of experimentation for the institutional actors responsible for the definition and implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) - the so-called second pillar. The European Union has rather invested in the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), which is perceived as a more straightforward policy field. The principles laid down in the Cotonou Agreement are accompanied by more concrete policies and instruments. The Franco-British rapprochement in Saint-Malo led to both the creation of the ESDP and the Europeanisation of the two countries' African policies, even though the United Kingdom has since seemed less anxious than France to Europeanise its African policy. Keywords: African security; Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP); Cotonou Agreement; European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP); European Union (EU); Franco-British rapprochement

This chapter inquires into the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) elements of the European Union's toolbox in civilian peace-building. The lack of readily available police personnel for deployment to Kosovo under UNMIK initially led the European Union to focus its Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) efforts on police missions. On the basis of Resolution 1244, an international civil presence was mandated to perform the basic civilian administrative functions, but for an interim period. The chapter offers a brief description of a number of civilian EU operations, complemented by a thorough analysis of the missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan. It illustrates that the European Union has launched police missions over the complete range of strengthening types identified in its comprehensive concept, namely organisation and restructuring, training and selection, and monitoring and mentoring, that all represent different, but complementary and potentially synergy-creating avenues for assisting post-conflict police forces.Keywords: Afghanistan; Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP); Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP); European Union; Kosovo; police forces; Resolution 1244

Foreign policy analysis (FPA) in a classical sense entails focusing on agents (individuals or groups of individuals). In the case of the European Union (EU), FPA becomes more problematic. Firstly, the question arises of what a foreign policy of the EU really means. This article defines EU foreign policy in a wider sense, namely along the lines of what is known as EU's external action. It focuses however on the security aspect of the EU's external action – the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and its defence dimension, the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Furthermore, a problem of identifying agents arises in the EU setting in large part because of the complex institutional setup of the CFSP/CSDP. Although final decisions are made at the level of the Council, the policy itself is drafted and prepared at lower levels of policy-making (working parties, committees and agencies) based in Brussels. This article proposes a discursive institutionalist model of analysis, applicable to any organization of the policy process. After presenting the model's ontological and epistemological positions, as well as theoretical underpinnings, the article elaborates on the different levels of information processing and meaning construction by actors and their role in setting the overall foreign policy discourse by shaping the coordinative discourses1 during this early phase of the policy-making process.

Present security situation in the world is differs from the Cold War and requires another approaches to solve many problems of regional or global character. To the fact, that the EU wants to play on the world political and military scene the role that is looking for, will be forced to work hard on enhancing effective (and in the future even a single) security policy, which has to be accompanied by an adequate building of military capabilities. Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is an integral part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), while it can be seen as a deepening of the CFSP, as well as a specific instrument of the CFSP. This article focuses on the role of the Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union, which through foreign operations and missions contributes to the stabilization and security not only in Europe but also globally. Attention is also paid to the expenses EU Member States spend on defense and last but not least to the analysis of issues in cooperation of the EU and NATO as an important factor of transatlantic security.

This study aims to comprehensively address the foreign policy cooperation processes shaped at the European Union (EU) level, especially in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), through the concept of Europeanization. In-depth analysis of the effects of the EU's integration and cooperation processes in the field of foreign policy on the national foreign policies of the member states is of great importance in understanding how this interaction is shaped both at the European and national levels. In this framework, it will be analyzed in detail how the EU's common foreign policy practices, which have been developed to increase its global influence, have harmonized with national interests and how they have sometimes come into conflict with these interests. Thus, it will be revealed how the EU's foreign policy strategies and national foreign policy dynamics interact. In this context, this study aims to examine the challenges faced by the EU in the foreign policy-making process and the historical, theoretical and practical obstacles in solving these challenges within the framework of the concept of Europeanization. It aims to analyze the development of foreign policy cooperation within the EU, especially in the period starting with the Maastricht Treaty, and the balance between the member states' desire to protect their national sovereignty and their efforts to establish a common foreign policy. In doing so, the scope and dimensions of the Europeanization process of national foreign policies in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy will be discussed and the formation process of the EU foreign policy and the important turning points in this process will be analyzed.

The EU as a Multilateral Security Actor after Lisbon: Constitutional and Institutional Aspects

Two years since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty the implementation of the constitutional and institutional changes it introduced is ongoing. This paper examines the potential and actual implications of these novelties for the capacity of the European Union (EU) to act as an effective multilateral security actor, placing special emphasis on coordination, flexibility and coherence in the areas of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The structure is twofold. First, the main constitutional changes to the areas of CFSP and CSDP will be examined in a critical light. The legal personality of the EU, its cross-cutting external relations objectives, the status of the CFSP and CSDP, new mechanisms for deepened security solidarity between the Member States and enhanced flexibility for CSFSP and CSDP are the focus of analysis. Second, the paper analyses the main novelties to the institutional framework of the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty, including the permanent President of the European Council, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the European External Action Service and Union Delegations, as well as the Political and Security Committee and the European Defence Agency. This paper argues that the Lisbon Treaty may have provided the constitutional and institutional ingredients for the EU to strengthen its position as a strategic actor in multilateral settings. However, practice shows that the political will of all EU actors involved and of the Member States remains an obstacle in the pursuit to reach the full potential of the novelties introduced by the Lisbon Treaty.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) objectives are an integral part of the overall objectives of the European Union and the policy area has developed from a purely intergovernmental form of cooperation in the days of the European political cooperation to an area in which the member states have increasingly accepted new forms of institutionalization. CFSP decisions are taken by the General Affairs Council, consisting of the ministers for foreign affairs of the member states. In spite of the growing pains in the development of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the European Union has made significant strides in deploying crisis management operations. However, the issue of defining success of the CSDP is no longer measured in terms of merely launching missions, ensuring mission output, and gathering operational experience. Whenever a common policy does not prove possible, member states are free to pursue their own national foreign policies.

Decision making has always been a sensitive issue for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Since the Maastricht Treaty, the right of the CFSP has materialized in unknown acts of the classic Community law: joint actions, common positions, joint strategies, as well as measures in the context of the former Community pillar called atypical acts: declarations, conclusions, and orientations. The CFSP, which includes the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), is characterized by a complex institutional apparatus and heavy and sophisticated decision-making procedures. People can assume all the issues settled by the Treaty of Lisbon. This actually puts an end to the pillar structure and tries to reunite the entire Union law around the former Community law. The original text of the chapter is in French. Keywords: Common Security and Defence Policy; Common Foreign and Security Policy; Community law; decision making; Maastricht Treaty; Treaty of Lisbon; Union law

The movement towards a Common European Security and Defence Policy (CESDP) in the contemporary European Union (EU), and the possible creation of a European army, capture the leitmotiv of contemporary European political integration. The movement towards a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in western Europe raises key questions about the very nature of European foreign and defence policy, transatlantic relations and, most significantly, the core meaning and destination of European union. Defence therefore takes on a salience not just in its own field, but in the entire European integration process. The culmination of interstate security co-operation would be the formation of an integrated security community in which identities and policy-making capacities have been consolidated or unified at the European level. Defence policy forms the spine of broader European security policy and a security strategy can only exist with a strong military spine. This is especially prescient following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on New York and Washington, DC. Washington expects Europe to follow its lead in international politics and terrorism policy. Since 1998, the Europeans have developed new plans to gain greater political and military independence from Washington and NATO. To what extent, therefore, does the EU want to go beyond being a mere 'civilian power' towards being a 'military power' following the recent terrorist attacks? What are the consequences of such a transformation for western Europe, the United States (US) and transatlantic relations? To what extent will the US remain involved in European security and in what form? The present analysis begins with an analysis of key issues in European defence and security after 11 September 2001. The article then goes on to consider options for transatlantic relations and European security. The article then considers the positions of the major western European powers towards the so-called CESDP. The article goes on to consider CESDP in the new global order, including US hopes and concerns for CESDP. Finally, the conclusion focuses on the prospects for European defence and security into the twenty-first century.