European Union Security Policy Research Articles

Finally coming of age? EU foreign and security policy after Ukraine

ABSTRACT The war on Ukraine is the most severe security crisis that Europe, and the European Union (EU), has faced since World War II. Contrary to what many expected, the EU responded quickly and comprehensively to the Russian invasion. How, if in any way, does the EU’s response to the war on Ukraine suggest that the EU is coming of age in the foreign and security domain? By exploring EU policies and actions across three key maturation processes, our analysis finds that the EU has become a more mature foreign policy actor, in a process that started well before the Russian full scale invasion but has escalated since then. With its broad response to the war on Ukraine, the EU has shown an increased ability to take quick decisions, provide resources and combine various instruments in response to a crisis (increased decision-making ability); it is taking on a clearer foreign policy role/identity as a principled pragmatist and crisis manager (more stable identity status); and this plays out in its relations with the US, in NATO and bilaterally (more salient and defined relations).

Re-imagining EU Foreign and Security Policy in a Complex and Contested World

ABSTRACT The European Union (EU) increasingly formulates and implements foreign and security policy under the constraints of internal contestation, regional fragmentation and multipolar competition. While such contextual challenges can inhibit the EU from adopting an ambitious foreign and security policy, this Special Issue shows that the EU and its member states have developed ways of mitigating their impact. Through institutional, functional and diplomatic measures, the EU has managed to reduce the adverse effect of the contextual factors on its foreign and security policy towards conflicts and crises.

Multipolar Competition and the Rules-based Order: Probing the Limits of EU Foreign and Security Policy in the South China Sea

ABSTRACT Deepening multipolar competition has imposed constraints on European Union foreign and security policy (EUFSP). In the South China Sea (SCS), the European Union (EU) faces a complex foreign policy terrain for three reasons. First, the EU’s geographic distance from – and relatively limited capabilities in – the region may lend itself to a de minimis mitigating strategy, especially when considered against the backdrop of the broader imperative to mitigate the impact of multipolar competition on its foreign policy more generally. Second, multipolarity can be compatible with the preservation of a rules-based international order (RBIO) if the latter term is interpreted less stringently. And third, rather than being a factor purely to mitigate, multipolar competition in the wider Indo-Pacific theatre offers the EU certain opportunities – albeit not without risks – to strengthen the character of its foreign and security policy by actively participating in a competitive dynamic. Together, these facts should encourage us to rethink whether ‘mitigation’ always captures the entire essence of the EU’s response to multipolar competition.

Rescuing the liberal international order: crisis, resilience and EU security policy

Abstract This article reflects on how European Union (EU) narratives of the crisis of the liberal international order (LIO) have reshaped its resilience approach and its foreign and security policy more broadly. Drawing on qualitative textual analysis, we trace the evolution of the EU's resilience approach over time and the way it has been shaped by crisis narratives. While the idea of resilience was introduced in EU foreign policy to foster the resilience of crisis-affected societies from the bottom up, the perception of an increasingly contested world first led to a reinterpretation of resilience in pragmatic ways, with values and interests combined selectively to protect the rules-based international order. More recently, on the grounds of a worsening crisis of the LIO, resilience has taken a defensive turn, adopting a more geopolitical stance to strengthen the EU's own resilience and that of the LIO. We argue that EU crisis narratives about the LIO thus serve to sustain and to rescue it. Furthermore, we conclude that the defensive reinterpretation of resilience is eroding the normative character of EU foreign and security policy. It also challenges the persistence of the LIO in the long term.

What do ‘local elites’ seek from EU security policies in the Sahel? Re-thinking the agency of non-European actors

The European Union (EU) has been attempting to promote stability in the Sahel since 2011 through capacity-building missions in the security and defence sectors. These policy instruments have been criticised for their limited effectiveness. To explain it, a common argument claims that ‘local elites’ lack ownership and political engagement. This article opposes such rationale and suggests that we need to rethink the agency of non-European actors beyond a Eurocentric conceptual toolbox (‘resistance’, ‘fragility’, ‘ownership’). Building on an ethnography of the European capacity-building mission in support of security forces in Niger (EUCAP Sahel), this article shows that Nigerien elites regard the EU as an economic resource rather than a genuine security actor. Therefore, they primarily seek economic profits, material advantages, and professional opportunities from EU security policies. The argument proceeds in three steps. The first part intends to refine the broad category of ‘local elites’. I suggest an inductive distinction that helps simplify our understanding of the agential practices of non-European actors. The second part uses this inductive distinction to foreground different strategies of Nigerien elites to make the most out of EU security policies. Third, the article discusses both the theoretical and policy implications of these empirical findings.

The conflict in Ukraine – a turning point for security and defence of the EU?

On 24 February 2022, war returned to the European continent. However, the Russian aggression did has not only affected Ukraine and its people, its negative consequences are being felt by the whole world, including the European Union, its Memeber States and their citizens. Under the influence of the ongoing conflict, the continental security environment and the security situation in the immediate vicinity of the borders of the European Union continue to deteriorate and interstate tensions between states are further deteriorating. At the same time, there is a threat to European values, democracy, freedom, security and prosperity. The aim of the authors' article is to point out the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on the current Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU).The article uses the scientific method of critical analysis of the CFSP of the EU and its basic strategic documents in the context of its application in the member countries. The results of the analyses are synthesized in the form of recommendations, mainly concering the timely response of the EU institution to the needs presented by individual member countries in the area of security and defence; investments spent on defence; compatibility of military means and systems; greater cohesion in the field of research and development of the EU member countries.In the conclusion, the author presents the opinion that the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has certainly brought several significant changes, but only a broader transformation of the EU's foreign and security policy can support truly positive developments in this area. Therefore, the question remains unanswered whether the conflict in Ukraine will prove to be a turning point or whether it will remain only an impetus for the accelerating programmes and the developing new formats and initiatives without creating any breakthrough plan for deeper European security and defence integration.

Article: Arms Transfers and Human Rights: Assessing the Impact and Enforcement of the EU Common Position on Arms Exports in a Multilevel Analysis

Arms export control measures are an important tool to defend the universality of human rights, democracy and to prevent conflicts. The European Union (EU) has a long tradition in striving towards these goals.One of the most important outcomes regarding such is the 2008 Council Common Position (CP) defining Common Rules Governing Control of Exports of Military Technology and Equipment Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This article focuses on the implementation and effectiveness of this CP. In particular, it investigates whether EU countries have applied and enforced human rights principles in arms export practices following the approval of the CP or whether a promarket and pro-export approach have prevailed. In this way, it fills a lack of organic analysis on the impact of the CP. Secondly, for the first time, it compares EU-level regulation impact with that at the global level, in order to assess the ‘net value’ of the EU regulation at the international level also from a diachronic perspective. Lastly, a comparison with the national level offer suggestions for mutual reinforcing. By using quantitative methods, the research aims to offer empirical evidence concerning the EU arms export control regimes and their effectiveness and to contribute to the present debate about the means at the EU’s disposal to defend the universality of human rights and promote democracy. EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, human rights, arms trade, arms exports control and disarmament, normative power, democracy, autocracy, sanctions, arms embargo

Differentiated Cooperation in the EU’s Foreign and Security Policy: Effectiveness, Accountability, Legitimacy

ABSTRACT European Union (EU) treaties have introduced legal frameworks for differentiated integration in European foreign and security policy, but they have rarely been used. Instead, member states have engaged in informal practices of differentiated cooperation. Based on an analysis of effectiveness, accountability and legitimacy of differentiated cooperation in the Western Balkans, the Middle East Peace Process, negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme and the Ukraine crisis, we argue that differentiated cooperation has had positive outcomes when it has adhered to common EU values and positions. When this has not been the case, differentiation has undermined EU foreign and security policy.

MIGRATIONS - JOURNEYS OF THE BROKERS - IN THE CONTEXT OF CONTEMPORARY AND FUTURE THREATS TO THE SECURITY OF 21ST CENTURY EUROPE

Contemporary and future threats to Europe in the 21st century constitute an important element of the European Union's security policy. Ongoing wars, terrorism, religious fanaticism and extreme poverty in third world countries led to a drastic wave of refugees that flooded Europe. The article presents the problem of threats related to the increasing migration, as well as the activities of the European Union aimed at preventing the migration crisis. The issue of Syrian refugees fleeing in desperation to Europe, a Europe that does not necessarily welcome them with open arms, was raised. The aim of the presented study is to analyze the situation of contemporary Europe in the context of threats related to the phenomenon of migration. Statistical data published by the most important institutions of the EU Member States, including data related to crimes committed by citizens who are not indigenous people of Europe, were thoroughly analyzed. Eurostat research, data disseminated by the Federal Criminal Police Office in Germany or statistics published by the Italian Istat were used. The conclusions from the above research allowed to verify the hypothesis that the migration crisis is a factor in the multifaceted destabilization of contemporary Europe, and the phenomenon of migration should be considered in this context. Due to the limited volume of the article, the author of the publication presented the most important legal bases regulating legal and illegal immigration, which will facilitate the understanding of the European Union's operation on the issue of interest to us.

Do or die? The UK, the EU, and internal/external security cooperation after Brexit

The European Union (EU) integration project is under attack from a reassertion of national sovereignty following Brexit and the Covid-19 crisis. Our analysis examines the impact that traditional forms of sovereignty and national interests will have on the conduct of EU foreign and security policy post-Brexit. We focus on the Brexit challenge to the EU mode of regulation and diplomacy in internal/external policies in Common Foreign and Security Policy, Common Security and Defence Policy, and Justice and Home Affairs. The article also considers key scenarios for future UK-EU security cooperation to inform analysis of likely policy outcomes for the UK and the EU. The article concludes that the EU will have a greater impact through its laws and regulations on the post-Brexit UK than vice versa and that Brexit is not an immediate threat to the EU's regulatory mode of security governance. The new realities of internal/external security governance in Europe post-Brexit will mean weakened EU–UK security arrangements, which will impact the scope and quality of European security cooperation beyond traditional defence. This is both undesirable and potentially dangerous for European security cooperation and for Europe's position in the wider world.

Theorizing and Testing Cross‐Loading: The EU Common Foreign and Security Policy and Polish Concessions to Germany's Russia Policy

AbstractThe article discusses the role of the European Union (EU) in facilitating concessions between member states which, paradoxically, pursue discrepant foreign interests. First, the article develops a theoretical framework for the under‐researched Europeanization model of cross‐loading. Here, strategic socialization, experiential learning, and policy transfer conceptualize how national actors adopt cooperative practices from the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) into their bilateral level. Meanwhile, rational institutionalism and the politics of scale help theorize tactical coalition‐ and consensus‐building specifically between discrepant national interests, with regard to states' complementary influence capabilities within the CFSP. Second, the article tests cross‐loading to confirm Poland's conciliatory Russia policy in 2008–14 as an EU‐induced concession to Germany. Arguably, Poland who pursued its strategic interests in the Eastern Partnership tactically adopted Germany's approach towards developing parallel EU–Russia policies. Poland thus recognized German skills to build consensus on the Eastern Partnership with stronger and Russian‐oriented member states.

Copying in EU security and defence policies: the case of EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia

ABSTRACT Why did the European Union (EU) launch a naval operation in response to the migration crisis, despite the humanitarian character of the challenge at hand, doubts about the effectiveness of a military response, and the EU’s traditional focus on civilian means? Integrating institutionalist theory and the literature on crisis response, this article argues that EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia is an example of copying through contingent learning wherein the EU’s response to the migration crisis was shaped by naval missions Operation Mare Nostrum and Operation Atalanta. While the former set a precedent for a naval response to migration in the Mediterranean, the latter provided an off-the-shelf institutional blueprint for the design and implementation of Operation Sophia. In a crisis situation characterised by high uncertainty, and with little time to rethink policies or to create new structures, EU political actors used contingent learning to quickly evaluate potential policy responses and institutional reforms, leading them to the decision to copy past institutional designs and practices previously considered successful. This finding has relevance beyond the case of Operation Sophia, as it contributes to a better understanding of why a particular type of policy or action is chosen in times of crisis and urgency.

The European Union security policy

Problem setting. In spite of the presence of numerous conventions, treaties and organizations in the world today, the issue of security is still a very acute issue for the world community. There are many reasons for this: the presence of nuclear powers, serious disputes between countries that are justly considered world leaders, the existence of numerous local conflicts and wars of a more global nature across the globe. These and other factors are pushing states around the world to allocate budget funds to ensure effective security policies. Given today’s realities, one can trace the tendency of several countries to pool their own efforts and resources to pursue a common security policy. The European Union is one of the clearest examples of this behavior. This intergovernmental organization is committed to maintaining peace, diplomacy, trade and development around the world. The EU also promotes cooperation with neighboring countries through the European Neighborhood Policy. Target research. The aim of the research is to study the role of the European Union’s institutional mechanism in the exercise of its powers to ensure the defense and foreign policy cooperation of the Member States. Analysis of recent research and publication. Many domestic and foreign scholars, including B. Tonro, T. Christiansen, S. Morsch, G. Mackenstein, and others. The institutional basis of foreign and security policy is analyzed in detail by J. Peterson, questions related to the European Union’s security policy. M. Shackleton. K. Gill, M. Smith and others study the general features of the development of a common EU security policy. Some contribution to the study of various problems related to European and Euro-Atlantic integration has been made by such national scientists as V. Govorukh, I. Gritsyak, G. Nemyrya, L. Prokopenko, O. Rudik, V. Streltsov, O. Tragniuk, I. Shumlyaeva, I. Yakovyuk and others. Article’s main body. The article examines the emergence and development of the European Union’s security policy from the date of the Brussels Covenant to the present. Particular attention is paid to the role of the European Union’s institutional mechanism in the exercise of its powers to ensure the defense and foreign policy cooperation of the Member States. A study of the officially adopted five-year global foreign and security policy of the EU is being done to improve stability in Europe and beyond, analyzing EU conflict resolution and crisis management activities. Conclusions and prospect of development. In view of the above, it can be concluded that the EU’s foreign and security policy institutional framework is an extensive system in which all the constituencies are endowed with a certain range of general and specific powers and are called upon to cooperate with one another to achieve a common goal. It cannot be said that such close cooperation puts pressure on Member States. Yes, a Member State has the right to refrain from voting for any decision that requires unanimity and such abstention will not prevent the above decision being taken. In this case, the mechanism of so-called “constructive retention” is triggered: the abstaining country is not obliged to comply with the decision, however, accepts the fact that it is binding on other Member States and takes this into account when concluding treaties, which should not contradict the said decision.

German Leadership in the Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union

The 2020s promise to be a challenging decade for Germany in international affairs. The model of international relations that developed after the Cold War, based on multilateral cooperation and diplomacy, is coming under further pressure. As the US relative power is in decline and other actors, especially China and Russia, are increasing their international influence, the world enters a decade of growing international competition. Unlike the US, China or Russia, Germany is not engaging in this increasingly tense geopolitical competition. As this Special Issue of German Politics demonstrates, Germany’s strength lies primarily in its tradition of diplomatic engagement on the European continent and beyond. The European Union (EU) is the main framework through which Germany pursues this cooperative approach. During the 2010s, Germany acquired a leading role in several areas of EU policy-making, including foreign and security policy. On numerous occasions, Germany’s leadership in the EU was severely put to the test. This Special Issue investigates the origins, nature and limitations of German leadership in the Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union.

EU foreign policy and energy strategy: bounded contestation

ABSTRACTThe external dimensions of energy security are subject to distinctive forms of contestation within the European Union (EU). Contestation related to the external dimensions of energy strategy is significant, but bounded. EU institutions and member states have contained contestation in at least some areas of external energy strategy, through both de-politicization dynamics and new mechanisms of horizontal coordination. The article demonstrates and explains such bounded contestation in three areas of EU international policies: security of supply, climate security and wider security challenges. It explains the different logics that underpin the management of divergence, and relates these to analytical debates over EU foreign and security policy. The article stresses the importance of understanding how contestation over energy policy is nested within a broader set of geopolitical imperatives.

Правова основа політики Європейського Союзу в галузі безпеки: від витоків до сучасності

Правова основа політики Європейського Союзу в галузі безпеки: від витоків до сучасності

The European Unions’ International Relations

This article explores major theoretical approaches to the study of European integration, European Union (EU) as a global power, and the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy. The argument presented here is that only a combination of both International Relations and European integration approaches will allow us to understand the very premises of the European integration project in terms of both internal and external – international-aspects. This approach will be complementary to the attempts by researchers those who call to mainstream European studies and an appeal in favor of abounding the project of conceptualizing the EU as a single case or as being Sui generis. This article argues that, despite serious attempts by scholars of the field of European studies, it seems difficult to theorize European integration. The established literature to the existing political entities seems less relevant to study EU due to the union’s unique identity. Theories of EU integration are unable to explain or predict the process of integration, but they are normally outpaced by events.

Influence beyond formal powers: The parliamentarisation of European Union security policy

The European Union’s foreign and security policy is commonly described as an intergovernmental affair. Despite limited formal powers, several studies suggest that the European Parliament has increased its influence on the Union’s foreign and security policy. This article argues that, to gauge the significance of parliamentary participation, it is necessary to look beyond the notion of formal parliamentary rights and to take into account informal influence. The analysis shows how informal avenues of influence are crucial at certain stages of the decision-making process, and points to factors that constrain and enable parliamentary impact. Furthermore, it emphasises the important role that parliaments play in scrutinising security policy, which is a crucial component of democratic governance. In this particular field where there is little legislation, the establishment of solid procedures and practices for oversight and control can also be a significant indicator of parliamentary influence.

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.

Anglo-German intelligence relations and Brexit

ABSTRACTSecurity and intelligence matter to the state; they also matter to the European Union (EU). Germany is a driving force behind the EU, which most naturally also includes support of EU security policy and institutions. However, there is also a long-standing bilateral tradition between the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany in this regard. Anglo-German intelligence and security relations have seen many ups and downs, but at the end of the day they have always proven to be effective in the right moment, with standing political crisis. Brexit means that the UK will be leaving the EU but not Europe – a simple fact often ignored in heated discussions. The UK will continue to share European security interests; she has to. Having said that, the current paper argues that current threats to national and EU security can in fact have soothing effect amid political turmoil around Brexit. The underlying argument is that common strategic interest is likely to lead to a cool-headed pragmatic approach. Intelligence and security relations, liaison and sharing, should, after all, continue to exist and not severely be affected by Brexit. It remains to be seen whether the UK will stay a permanent member of the respective EU security institutions; however, even if technically the answer is no, some sort of arrangement ensuring constant exchange is highly likely. This, after all, leads to the conclusion that from the Anglo-German intelligence and security point of view Brexit will not be a very dramatic affair.