European Defence Policy Research Articles

In search of a post-hegemonic order: Germany, NATO and the European security and defence policy

This article explores the erosion of the conditions which supported Germany's emergence as a ‘Civilian Power’, in particular fundamental changes in the US perspective on the transatlantic relationship and international security, but also the increased sensitivity of German foreign policy to domestic circumstances. It explores Germany's so far ambivalent and inconsistent role in the pursuit of a post-hegemonic order for Euro-Atlantic security, focusing in particular on the emerging European Security and Defence Policy.

'United in its Diversity' (or Disunited in Adversary): That is the Question for the European Union and the European Security and Defence Policy

'United in its Diversity' (or Disunited in Adversary): That is the Question for the European Union and the European Security and Defence Policy

‘United in its diversity’ (or disunited in adversary): That is the question for the European Union and the European security and defence policy

The years 2002–2004 showed that political integration in the European Union for the foreseeable future has gone as far as it can go. The Iraqi war demonstrated that, whilst able to agree on low politics, the member states are clearly divided about the finalité politique of the EU, the strategic culture they should adopt and their attitude to the United States. Kagan was partly right on the philosophical divide between the Americans and some in Europe, but that division also stretches among the European Union of twenty‐five. They are faced with having to resolve whether to go down the Franco‐German European integrationist route or the more intergovernmental and Atlantic road of the British. 2002–2004 also showed that on issues of high politics, member states rely on their perception of their national interest rather than on neo‐realism or neo‐liberal institutionalism.

Discourse, Ideas, and Epistemic Communities in European Security and Defence Policy

(2004). Discourse, Ideas, and Epistemic Communities in European Security and Defence Policy. West European Politics: Vol. 27, Policy Change and Discourse in Europe, pp. 211-234.

Reconfiguring NATO for Future Security Challenges

The Prague Defense Capabilities Strategy is invigorating the relevance of NATO by improving capabilities, streamlining the command structure, and establishing the NATO Response Force. Even though the latter two initiatives are progressing well, the issue of capabilities could become the Achilles Heel of the NATO Alliance unless a corrective course is made. Generally, European states show little inclination to improve their military capabilities for the betterment of the Alliance, and the European Union Rapid Reaction Force is well on its way to becoming a white elephant for European security and defense policy, as well as a Trojan horse for NATO. On the other hand, NATO's streamlining of its military structure and the establishment of a response force provide the Alliance with a veritable expeditionary capability. These reforms place NATO on the cusp of equality with the United States as a security partner, but under its current military structure, the issue of capabilities will keep it from crossing the final hurdle. A fundamental overhaul of NATO's military structure is called for. Under the aegis of collective contributions for collective defense, downsizing the Alliance to nine integrated multinational divisions, each located in a division-sized base, would permit greater interoperability and burden sharing among NATO members as well as realize tremendous cost savings. Each member would contribute military forces according to its size and relative wealth rather than maintaining a standing army for potential crises. In the end, NATO would be able to enjoy a collective defense dividend that has eluded it for centuries, while making a significant contribution to global security.

Repercussions of the Emerging European Security and Defence Policy on the Civil Character of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

The EU's most important integration project in recent times is her pursuit of an autonomous European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Due to divergent perceptions, interests and national security identities within the EU, however, ESDP is still lacking a coherent strategy. This deficit provokes critical questions about whether ESDP will remain within the framework of a civil security culture, as developed in the theoretical concept of a European civilian power, or whether ESDP will open the way to a more ‘realistic’ approach to EU foreign policy-making. This question is especially decisive for the Mediterranean Partner Countries (MPCs), since their territories are potential destinations for future ESDP missions. So far, Euro-Mediterranean relations have been organized in the civil framework of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP). To what extent will ESDP challenge the special character of the EMP?

The European Parliament and European Union Security and Defence Policy

Acquisition of co-decisional authority in home and foreign affairs was a significant turning point in the institutional history of the European Parliament (EP). The EP has become, as a result, the driver behind the EU's institutional development and adaptation to its changing international environment. The increasing confluence of CFSP/ESDP issue areas with the issue areas of EU enlargement illustrates the significance of the EP's participation. The relevant deliberations of the Convention on the Future of Europe also reflect this development. The EP is, through its Members, the EU organ closest to the blurry frontier between the (EU) ‘system’ and its (international) ‘environment’.

Security-Building in the Mediterranean After September 11

The collection, introduced in this first contribution, sets out to analyse the development of politics in the Mediterranean against the background of a paradigmatically changing international environment. It embarks on the hypothesis that September 11 has resulted in a worrying tendency to securitize international terrorism. The concept of securitization legitimizes the fight against a vital threat by recourse to all possible means, including the breaking of existing rules. This is perceived as worrying because it undermines pivotal factors for security-building, such as the rule of international law, respect for human rights and democracy. Empirical research verifies that since September 11, what were already weak processes of democratization in the Mediterranean have been damaged by the irresponsible depreciation of binding rules. However, since Mediterranean politics have always been determined by the interrelations of international, regional and domestic dynamics, these have to be taken into consideration too. The Al-Aqsa Intifada, the change of political elites in some Arab countries, the evolution of a unilateral European Security and Defence Policy and the process of EU enlargement all have their own political impact. Security-building in the Mediterranean needs to be analysed in the context of these highly interrelated developments.

The future of European defence policy: An economic perspective

European defence policy has been dominated by politics. This paper shows how economic principles can be used to derive guidelines for the formulation of European defence policy. The inefficiencies of the EU's existing defence arrangements are identified. It is shown that there is scope for efficiency improvements in the EU's Armed Forces and its defence industries.

The framing of European foreign and security policy: towards a post-modern policy framework?

This article explores the evolution of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the common European security and defence policy (CESDP), taken to represent European foreign and security policy, with an emphasis on the continuous reframing of policy within a changing "foreign policy space'. Having identified the key phases in the evolution of this European foreign policy space, the article then pursues two general aims: first, to establish how far this evolution reflects the interaction of ideas, institutions and policies; second, to assess the significance of a number of key "drivers' common to many areas of policy within the EU - the search for legitimacy, the preferences of member states and the desire for environmental stabilization. On the basis of this exploration, the article argues that it is possible to discern the emergence of a "post-modern' or " extra-national' foreign policy in the EU, which has significant echoes of policy- making in other areas of EU activity.

The french and british change in position in the CESDP : a security community and historical -institutionalist perspective

The Helsinki European Council conclusions of December 1999 aimed at strengthening the Common European Security and Defence Policy (CESDP). The EU Member States decided that the EU should be able to assume its responsibilities for the full range of conflict prevention and crisis management tasks required to deal with crises such as the Balkan crisis. They are currently looking at the degree of the autonomous capacity of the EU to take decisions, and where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises. This paper argues that France and the United Kingdom reached a more than “Lowest Common Denominator” (LCD) agreements when they negotiated the creation of the CESDP: they changed their initial positions, and the UK changed its preference. These EU Member States were mainly motivated by the way the United States dealt with the Balkans’ crises. They were then constrained in their action by the US and the EU’s institutions. Realism, the conventional theory which is expected to explain high politics decision-making processes does not seem appropriate here to explain the change in the British and French position: the security community concept and historical institutionalism might be more useful here. This paper is divided into two main parts. The first one analyses the creation and substance of the CESDP, while the second one focuses on the evolution of the French and British change in position and looks at the possible explanations for this.

The common European security and defence policy and the ‘third‐country’ issue

The Common European Security and Defence Policy (CESDP) of the European Union (EU) was launched in 1999 and has been perceived as a landmark step toward European security cooperation, particularly in the field of crisis management. Still in its early stages, some difficult issues have become apparent. Of these, the so‐called ‘third‐country’ issue may prove to be among the most significant. This problem refers to the necessity of associating states outside the EU with CESDP. In this regard, three states stand out — the United States, Turkey and Russia — and this article considers their concerns and the European response in detail. This is prefaced by a general overview of how the third‐country problem emerged and what the EU has done to address it. It concludes by suggesting that third‐country considerations could well determine where and how EU‐led missions operating under the auspices of CESDP are deployed.

The European security and defence policy: What impact on the EU's approach to security challenges?

The development of a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) has been seen by some as key to giving the EU greater international influence, by others as a threat to the EU's strengths as a civilian power. This article finds that, as of 2002, the EU's new military dimension could not be conceived as a fundamental threat to its civilian power acquis. Concerns have justifiably been raised over the possible diversion of resources into the military sphere, the emergence of a less transparent policy‐making culture and ESDP's effect on the way the EU is perceived from outside. However, force levels have remained limited and most policymakers see the new EU Rapid Reaction Force (RRF) as an instrument for complementing civilian elements of crisis management. This article measures ESDP more specifically against the substantive approaches towards security challenges that the EU has elaborated. It argues that European strategies suffer most notably from political‐level conceptual weaknesses that cut across both civilian and military domains and that the incipient ESDP has yet to address.

Civilian power and ‘history‐making’ decisions: German agenda‐setting on Europe

This article examines ‘history‐making’ decisions on Europe by the German government, drawing on the concept of civilian power, which has been refined by international relations theorists, subjecting it to a political science critique. Three case studies ‐ of economic and monetary union (EMU), dual enlargement and European defence and security policy ‐ are discussed and compared with the aim of assessing the value of civilian power for the analysis and explanation of key German decisions. The focus is on agenda‐setting in relation to key ‘history‐making’ decisions. It is argued that German European policy behaviour is better explained by civilian power than realism or neo‐liberal institutionalism. However, civilian power does not adequately capture the complex attitudes and values at work in Germany, the interests brought to bear in a fragmented, sectoralised policy process, the resource limitations on pursuing this approach, and the external conditions for sustaining such a role.

European Security and defence policy as a framework for defence co‐operation

European Security and defence policy as a framework for defence co‐operation

Europe de la Défense : y a-t-il encore une ambition française ?

Europe and Defence: Does France still Have an Ambition for it?, by Gilles ANDRÉANI After 50 years under the aegis of the United States, Europe has begun seriously, through the European Councils at Saint-Malo and Helsinki, to take over its own defence. This evolution was made possible by the end of the cold war, the warming of relations between London and Paris on transatlantic relations, and, finally, through the priority given to military capabilities, the key to independence on defence matters. But, after September 11 and the reaffirmation of the US hegemony on the international scene, a European defence policy must confront a major issue: does Europe want and can it become a genuine international player, capable of standing up to the challenges of global security? By proposing a transatlantic and European solidarity project that allows a European defence policy to coexist along side the US hyperpower, France will be able to play a once again a leading role on the old continent.

European Defense Policy after the Nice Summit: The Transatlantic Dimension

European Defense Policy after the Nice Summit: The Transatlantic Dimension

The Southern Mediterranean and the Advent of a European Defense Policy

The Southern Mediterranean and the Advent of a European Defense Policy

Russia's Attitude to the European Security and Defence Policy

Russia's Attitude to the European Security and Defence Policy

European security and defence policy: A key project for European unification

European security and defence policy: A key project for European unification