CSDP Operations Research Articles

Ad hoc coalitions in European security and defence: symptoms of short-term pragmatism, no more?

ABSTRACT Ad hoc forms of military cooperation have become commonplace in European security and defence. The EU has even voiced the ambition to strengthen mutual support between its CSDP operations and European-led ad hoc coalitions. We ask whether and how this mutual support is strengthened and what it means for European defence integration. We focus on two cases: Task Force Takuba deployed to the Sahel region and the European Maritime Awareness mission in the Strait of Hormuz. Our analysis shows that European-led ad hoc coalitions are driven by short-term pragmatism, focused on providing quick fixes to collective problems and achieving particularistic gains. Plans to strengthen mutual support with the EU mostly emerge gradually and bottom-up, from military-operational experiences. However, formal integration is often hindered by political quarrels. We conclude that the EU needs a strategic vision for the position of ad hoc coalitions in European security and defence.

THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU) AND THE CLIMATE-SECURITY NEXUS: CSDP MISSIONS AND OPERATIONS

Since the mid-2000s, the climate-security nexus has come to the forefront of scholarly debates. For some scholars, the linkages between climate change and security should be analyzed from the national security perspective, whereas others from a human security perspective. Taking into consideration the implications of climate change on national and human security, international organizations worldwide started to develop policies in this field. The EU acknowledges climaterelated security risks and searches for new policies and tools to respond to them. Yet, the EU’s efforts remain mainly at the discursive level. On the practical level, the EU’s various policy tools have not yet incorporated climate-security nexus in their agenda. This paper aims to analyze the impact of the climate-security nexus on the EU’s CSDP missions and operations.

The effect of climate change on future Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operations

Never before in the known history of the world people had such a great impact on climate change as since the beginning of the era of industrialization. Industrial production on a huge, unprecedented scale, apart from its benefits, causes climate change on a global scale through the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. According to the AR5 IPCC report, it is expected that the ever-increasing CO2 emissions and the lack of action to reduce it will increase the average global temperature from the pre-industrial era by up to 4 degrees Celsius to 2100. Such significant climate change can have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the inhabitants of our planet. Exhausting sources of drinking water, land that cannot be cultivated and depleting natural resources will force people to fight for what will remain. The emergence of military groups will result in both internal armed conflicts and international tensions caused by mass migration of people from countries with the least vulnerability to the effects of climate change, to highly developed regions such as EU countries. Climate change in the context of security is multidimensional and affects almost every sector. EU countries will be forced to counteract the effects of climate change not only through agreements or declarations within the UN, but also by involving their own forces and resources in CSDP missions and operations. The current activities under CSDP will be intensified as well as diversified by implementing support for technological adaptation to new climate conditions in undeveloped countries.

Assessing the EU’s commitment to multilateralism CSDP and Member States’ propensity to participate in peace missions

This paper analyzes the contribution of the CSDP operations to the peace building tasks of the peace operations of the global system, and examines the different levels of participation of EU Member States. Section one presents the scenario and considers the growth and expansion of practice of peace operations in the last twenty years. Section two reviews the main attributes of the CSDP operations. Section three explores the contribution of the old and new Member States to CSDP by examining the number of operations these countries participated in. The concluding section summarizes the research findings, and points to the current challenges faced by the EU’s peace missions.

Stálá strukturovaná spolupráce EU - nový impuls k zefektivnění vzájemné interakce mezi plánováním operací a rozvojem schopností

The authors' intention is to present findings to which they came while analysing the implementation process of the EU Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), especially in the area of EU operations planning and development of capabilities required for achieving the EU level of ambition. Only issuing the EU Global Strategy in 2016 and its subsequent implementation process seems to be a momentum for specifying commitments stemming from PESCO. At present, there is a list of common binding commitments which 25 of 28 EU member states have signed to. This list includes specific commitments as for development of required capabilities needed for achieving expected objectives of CSDP operations. Nevertheless, a very critical point related to the current PESCO implementation process is whether the present level of EU member states integration allows fully completing all highly ambitious commitments as declared by political leaders.

The Credibility of European Union Military Operations’ Deterrence Postures

ABSTRACTSince 2003, the European Union (EU) has launched eight military operations with an executive mandate in the framework of its European (now Common) Security and Defence Policy (ESDP/CSDP), all of which have utilized deterrence to fulfil their missions. Some have done so implicitly by having a mission that requires them to keep certain actors from doing something unwanted, whilst others have done so explicitly by having deterrence clearly mentioned as one of their core tasks in their mandates. Despite this, deterrence in the context of CSDP has been an almost totally neglected subject in the academic literature. Furthermore, the EU itself has tended to take the deterrence effect of CSDP operations for granted, which is dangerous because it may blind it to potential problems that may in fact be undermining their credibility. This article seeks to launch a more focused discussion on deterrence in the context of EU security policy by analysing the credibility of CSDP operations’ deterrence postures. Based on findings from case studies on operations Althea and Atalanta, it argues that CSDP operations’ deterrence postures lack credibility because they have insufficient resources for taking care of their deterrence tasks. Furthermore, they do not communicate threats effectively.

‘It is important, but…’: translating the Women Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda into the planning of EU peacekeeping missions

The European Union’s commitment to mainstreaming gender in the context of peacekeeping and conflict management is expressed through a number documents and policy initiatives. However, current research highlights how EU policies and practices fall short of a commitment to take gender seriously. This paper seeks to complement these studies by examining the ways in which WPS is articulated in the planning stages of EU CSDP missions and translated into policy practices in the field. In tracking WPS as it shifts and expands into the complex institutional and operational contexts of EU peacekeeping and crisis management, we focus on two moments – the pre-deployment planning phase of operations and the post-deployment implementation phase. Our research confirms the tensions and gaps between feminist debates on gender, peace and security; the translation of feminist insights into the policy language of EU security and conflict management, and WPS as practice in the planning of CSDP operations.

Beyond Actorness in EU Crisis Management: Internal Functions of External Peacekeeping

What do European crisis management operations in remote places reveal about the EU’s political ambitions and about the present state of European integration? Against a traditional reading in terms of actorness and effectiveness, this article applies the functionality thesis to CSDP operations, and argues that the latter perform three internal functions: a substitute for national strategies in international crisis management; a way for EU foreign policy actors to compete against each other for political power; and an opportunity to reflect upon the nature and identity of the EU. Through a case study of the military intervention EUFOR Chad/CAR, the article demonstrates that an approach in terms of functionality is more accurate empirically than one in terms of effectiveness. Theoretically, it also usefully bridges the traditional rationalist/constructivist divide in the literature on CSDP, and provides challenging avenues for future research on EU peacekeeping in a middle-ground and sociological perspective.

Balancing Threat, not Capabilities: European Defence Cooperation as Reformed Bandwagoning

Cladi and Locatelli's conceptualization of CSDP as an instance of bandwagoning on US power has significant analytical leverage; however, their analysis fails to outline an alternative systemic explanation to the balance of power. This contribution argues that European defence cooperation is best understood by using a neoclassical realist analysis that integrates the insights of Stephen Walt's ‘balance of threat’ theory. Furthermore, it is argued that the analysis presented by Pohl neglects the role of the Atlantic Alliance in European security. In doing so, Pohl misses the nature of CSDP as the central element of the ‘reform’ of western Europe's Cold War bandwagoning on US power. One should not, therefore, expect CSDP operations to necessarily be about frustrating or helping US strategic objectives. CSDP is instead an institution that is designed primarily to meet security challenges within Europe's geopolitical neighbourhood that the US is unwilling or unable to tackle.

A Toolkit for Evaluating the Design and Implementation of European Union Security and Defence Policy Mandates

The paper elaborates a toolkit for the systematic assessment of CSDP operations. It is derived from international relations theories and enables analysts to go beyond existing evaluation research of the CSDP, which is largely ad hoc and idiosyncratic in character. The kit classifies operations on the basis of their mandated activities. Common Security missions perform three roles: bargaining, arguing and information brokerage. These roles can be further broken down into specific actions: deterrence, compellence, facilitation of EU conditionality, mentoring, advising, training, monitoring and mediation. Drawing on IR theories, the toolkit identifies conditions that enable the successful completion of these actions. The paper uses examples to illustrate how the toolkit can be used to evaluate to what extent the roles assigned to CSDP operations by Brussels match the scope conditions present in theatre; to what extent Brussels has equipped its operations with the required role-specific policy instruments; and to what extent mission managers (in Brussels and in theatre) are successful in organising the means they have been given to increase the likelihood of successful mandate implementation.