EU Security Policy Research Articles

The Changing Transatlantic Relationship: A Socio-Cultural Approach

The growing rift in the transatlantic relationship will remain a problem for some time to come, largely, although not exclusively, as a result of the cultural differences that have become more pronounced between Europe and the United States. While much of the discourse on Euro-American divergences centers increasingly on disparities in the military-security domain and on differing geostrategic interests, socio-cultural differences are equally to blame for the transatlantic rift. Following a discussion on the contemporary perspectives on US–European relations, I explore three socio-cultural factors that contribute to the recent schism: the Europeanization of socialization, the emergence of Europe as a norm leader, and the diverging discourse between Europe and the United States. I argue that the way to manage transatlantic grievances more constructively is to strengthen the EU's foreign and security policy. The United States also must fully accept the existence of interlocking and overlapping institutions.

Why the EU's common foreign and security policy will remain intergovernmental: a rationalist institutional choice analysis of European crisis management policy

Critics have suggested communitarizing the European Union's common foreign and security policy in order to increase its effectiveness. Drawing on rationalist theories of regimes and institutional choice, this paper argues that the delegation of competencies to the EU's supranational institutions is unlikely to make European crisis management more effective. Crisis management policy is best understood as a fast co-ordination game in which member states react to international crises under tight time pressure. From this perspective, agreements are self-enforcing and strong institutions are not required. In particular, none of the functions that a delegation of competencies is expected to perform - i.e. formal agenda- setting, monitoring and sanctioning, executing as well as locking-in agreements - plays a pivotal role in crisis management. In contrast, the extension and application of qualified majority voting can speed up decision-making which is the key to a more effective common foreign and security policy.

The democratic deficit of EU foreign and security policy

The democratic deficit of EU foreign and security policy

European Union's Foreign and Security Policy Integration: Half Full or Half Empty?

Abstract Drawing on the two main theories of regional integration, neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism, this study identifies four important variables that are likely to shape the future of the EU's foreign and security policy: existence of spillover pressure; entrepreneurial role played by either supranational or national actors; convergence of national interests; and presence of support from transnational actors and the general public. As Europe emerges as an economic bloc in its mm right, the need for its mm foreign and security policy for protecting or enhancing its economic interests has been acutely felt among Europeans. Supranational actors of the EU such as the European Commission and the European Parliament are anxious to have Europe's foreign and security policy enter the EU's ambit, feeding into the existing spillover pressure. Further, the Kosovo crisis has produced a sea change in European—especially British—attitudes. The British shift is of particular significance, because all along it was the UK's opposition that posed the biggest impediment in the development of common European foreign policy. If the obstacle hitherto considered most intractable is to some extent removed, however, other challenges might arise. If it entails increases in defense budget, the most likely internal source of resistance to the development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy would be the taxpayers. On the other hand, the restructuring of Europe's foreign policy cooperation under the heading of the strengthened CFSP is also likely to encounter mixed responses from the US. While the US has genuinely supported a more unified Europe, what it wants is not an assertive Europe but one just cohesive enough to be able to share the burden of European security.

Neutrality, a Really Dead Concept?

Identity, norms, and values have become some of the most discussed topics in the field of international relations. Surprisingly, at the same time, neutrality has almost disappeared from the academic agenda on European security. Its discourse has narrowed down to mainstream discussions about NATO enlargement and military crisis management. Neutrality is not seriously discussed anymore, but seen as a relic from the Cold War, hampering participation in collective security endeavors. Concentrating on neutrality's political core rather than on its legal obligations, and differentiating its realistic functions from its idealistic ones, I argue that neutrality still offers an interesting alternative to security identities based on membership in military alliances. Its role conceptions provide clear guidelines for constructive participation of neutral states in multilateral security frameworks such as the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy and NATO's Partnership for Peace initiative.

A complex puzzle ‐ the EU's security policy and UN reform

(1994). A complex puzzle ‐ the EU's security policy and UN reform. The International Spectator: Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 53-66.