Deubner Security and Defence Cooperation in the EU

A Matter of Utility and Choice
1. Auflage 2018
ISBN: 978-3-8452-8780-5
Verlag: Nomos
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 270 Seiten, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 227 mm

Against the backdrop of past and present challenges, the author of this book probes the comparative utility of the EU Member States’ principal cooperation options in security and defence in terms of their scope, institutions and procedures, and the EU Member States’ choices in this respect over the past two decades. EU Member States have not demonstrated a preference for cooperation in that policy area so far and are not likely to do so in the near future either. There is no specific common purpose that would justify a significant effort to strengthen future EU cooperation on its Common Security and Defence Policy in 2017. NATO, ad hoc coalition forming and UN peacekeeping appear and will appear more useful and important for EU Member States in the medium term.
In recent years observers have been struck by how much internal security threats, radical Islamist terror attacks and the Member States’ discord over migration have influenced the reorientation of the EU Member States’ external security and defence policies. In that increasingly important nexus, the author proposes ideas for a more systematic approach to research.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Deubner, Christian

Fachgebiete

• Sozialwissenschaften Politikwissenschaft Militärwesen Nationale und Internationale Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik
• Sozialwissenschaften Politikwissenschaft Internationale Beziehungen Europäische Union, Europapolitik

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Cover;1
2; Results in a nutshell;12
3; Introductory Remarks and Summary;14
3.1; 1 Contexts;14
3.1.1; 1.a International Challenges;14
3.1.2; 1.b EU Systemic Challenges;15
3.2; 2 Objectives, Methods and Questions;17
3.2.1; 2.a The scope of this analysis and the prominence of ‘hard’ security aspects;18
3.2.2; 2.b Method and Questions;19
3.3; 3 Summary;21
4; Part 1: Which Cooperation for External Security, in the EU of 2017 ?;30
4.1; Chapter 1: Operationalizing Objectives, Methods and Questions;40
4.1.1; 1 Integration of ‘Core Powers’?;40
4.1.1.1; 1.a The Standard View: Impossible to Integrate;40
4.1.1.2; 1.b A Dynamic Perspective;41
4.1.1.3; 1.c The Research Question;42
4.1.1.4; 1.d Normative and Comparative Benchmarks of Policy Integration in the EU;42
4.1.2; 2 The Decisive Role of EU Member States’ External Security and Defence Policies;46
4.2; Chapter 2: Security Challenges and the Evolution of EU Policy until 2015;49
4.2.1; 1 Perspectives of Armed Conflict and Violence Worldwide;49
4.2.2; 2 Russia and Iran;50
4.2.2.1; 2.a Crimea and Ukraine;50
4.2.2.1.1; 2.a.a EU CFSP Reactions;51
4.2.2.2; 2.b The Iran Nuclear Challenge;54
4.2.3; 3 Civil Wars and Crisis in the South and South-East of the EU;54
4.2.4; 4 Radical Islamist Terror;55
4.3; Chapter 3: CSDP-Enablers and their Shortcomings;57
4.3.1; 1 Internal Enablers : CSDP Institutions and Procedures, and the EU-MS;57
4.3.1.1; 1.a Conceptualisation;57
4.3.1.2; 1.b Decision-Making;57
4.3.1.3; 1.c Political Control, Strategic Direction and Command;59
4.3.2; 2 Shortcomings of Internal Enablers;61
4.3.2.1; 2.a The Absence of Common Threat Perceptions and Common Responses;62
4.3.2.2; 2.b The Absence of Permanent Groups of Closer Defence Policy Cooperation;63
4.3.2.3; 2.c The Absence of an ”Operational Headquarters for CSDP Military Operations”;64
4.3.2.4; 2.d The CSDP’s Structural Incapacity of Rapid Executive Action in Intervention;65
4.3.2.4.1; 2.d.a The Difficult Coordination between Community Policies and CSDP Missions in the ‘Comprehensive Approach’;68
4.3.2.4.2; 2.d.b The Lack of EU Funding;71
4.3.2.5; 2.e The Fragmentation of the EU’s Military Instrument;72
4.3.2.5.1; 2.e.a Battlegroups;73
4.3.2.5.2; 2.e.b EDA;74
4.3.2.6; 2.f The Four Security and Defence Policies of the EU-MS;75
4.3.3; 3 Facing Competing Options of Defence Policy Cooperation: How Do EU-MS Choose?;76
4.3.3.1; 3.a Intermediate Conclusion: The Narrow Scope of CSDP;76
4.3.3.2; 3.b An Increasing Geographical Orientation towards Africa and –potentially– the Arabian Peninsula;87
4.3.4; 4 External Enablers;88
4.3.4.1; 4.a United Nations;89
4.3.4.1.1; 4.a.a UN Setting the Rules;89
4.3.4.1.2; 4.a.b UN also Setting the Operational Stage;91
4.3.4.1.3; 4.a.c Summing up :;92
4.3.4.2; 3.b France in Africa;95
4.3.4.3; 4.c African Union, AU;97
4.3.4.4; 4.d NATO;98
4.4; Chapter 4: The Newest Developments of Challenges and Enablers;103
4.4.1; 1 Challenges;103
4.4.1.1; 1.a The Evolving Role of the US;103
4.4.1.2; 1.b The Cohabitation with NATO;104
4.4.1.3; 1.c The Irruption of Internal Security Objectives into CSDP;108
4.4.1.4; 1.d A Potential Perspective of Higher Intensity Missions for the CSDP?;109
4.4.2; 2 Internal Enablers;110
4.4.2.1; 2.a Strengthening Institutional Coordination at Commission Level – the Comprehensive Approach;110
4.4.3; 3 Intermediate Evaluation – Where Does CSDP Stand in 2015-16 ?;115
4.4.3.1; 3.a Unilateral Sovereign Defence;116
4.4.3.1.1; 3.a.a UK;116
4.4.3.1.2; 3.a.b France;117
4.4.3.1.3; 3.a.c Multilateralist Germany;122
4.4.3.2; 3.b Intermediate Summing-Up;123
4.5; Chapter 5: The Beginning Reform Debate of the Years 2015-16;127
4.5.1; 1 Conceptualisation of Reform;127
4.5.1.1; 1.a How to Reform CFSP/CSDP;127
4.5.1.2; 1.b Utility and Ever-Closer-Union;127
4.5.2; 2 Early Proposals and First Evaluation;129
4.5.2.1; 2.a EU-Institutions;129
4.5.2.2; 2.b One National Government;130
4.5.2.3; 2.c One Crucial Issue: NATO;132
4.5.3; 3 The EU Global Strategy;133
4.5.3.1; 3.a The Making and the Limits of the EU Global Strategy;134
4.5.3.2; 3.b Implementing the EU Global Strategy;136
4.5.3.2.1; 3.b.a Operational Issues;137
4.5.3.2.1.1; 3.b.a.a The Absence of ‘Common Threat Perceptions’ and ‘Common Answers’.;137
4.5.3.2.1.1.1; Assessment:;138
4.5.3.2.1.2; 3.b.a.b The Difficult Coordination of Community Policies with CSDP Missions in the ‘Comprehensive Approach’.;139
4.5.3.2.1.2.1; Assessment:;139
4.5.3.2.1.3; 3.b.a.c The Place Accorded to CSDP-NATO;140
4.5.3.2.1.4; 3.b.a.d EU Operational Headquarters for Military Non-executive CSDP Missions;140
4.5.3.2.1.4.1; Assessment:;141
4.5.3.2.1.5; 3.b.a.e The CSDP’s Structural Incapacity of Rapid Executive Action in Military and Civilian Intervention;141
4.5.3.2.1.5.1; Assessment:;142
4.5.3.2.1.6; 3.b.a.f The Absence of Permanent Groups of Closer Defence Policy Cooperation;143
4.5.3.2.1.6.1; Assessment:;143
4.5.3.2.2; 3.b.b Capacity/Assets Issues;144
4.5.3.2.2.1; Assessment:;144
4.5.3.2.2.1.1; 3.b.b.a Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO;145
4.5.3.2.2.2; Assessment:;145
4.5.3.2.2.2.1; 3.b.b.b European Defence Agency EDA;146
4.5.3.2.2.3; Assessment:;147
4.5.3.2.2.3.1; 3.b.b.c Overcome National Fragmentation?;147
4.5.3.2.2.3.1.1; 3.b.b.c.a Intergovernmental Coordination-Cooperation Approach.;147
4.5.3.2.2.3.1.2; 3.b.b.c.b Intergovernmental plus Community: The EU Commission’s ‘European Defence Action Plan’;148
4.5.3.2.2.4; Assessment:;149
4.5.3.2.2.4.1; 3.b.b.c.c The Battlegroups;149
4.5.3.2.2.5; Assessment:;150
4.6; Conclusion;151
4.6.1; 1 The EU Global Strategy and European ‘Integration’ of MS’ Security and Defence Policies;151
4.6.1.1; 1.a The Point of Departure : The Result of Fourteen Years of EU-MS’ Choices in SDP Cooperation;151
4.6.1.2; 1.b The EU Global Strategy Confronting the Structural Facts of EU-MS’ Security and Defence Policies;152
4.6.1.2.1; 1.b.a. The External Context;153
4.6.1.2.1.1; 1.b.a.a UN Peacekeeping;153
4.6.1.2.1.1.1; Proposal:;154
4.6.1.2.1.2; 1.b.a.b CSDP’s Relations with NATO and UN and AU;155
4.6.1.2.1.2.1; Proposal:;155
4.6.1.2.1.3; 1.b.a.c French Unilateralism;156
4.6.1.2.1.3.1; Proposal:;156
4.6.1.2.2; 1.b.b. The Internal Context;157
4.6.1.2.2.1; 1.b.b.a The Differences between EU-MS’ Views on Security Challenges and the Appropriate Responses;157
4.6.1.2.2.2; 1.b.b.b Coordination with NATO;158
4.6.1.2.2.2.1; Proposal:;158
4.6.1.2.2.3; 1.b.b.c French Unilateralism;158
4.6.1.2.2.3.1; Proposal:;160
4.6.1.2.2.4; 1.b.b.d Implementation of the Comprehensive Approach in CSDP;161
4.6.1.2.2.4.1; Proposals:;162
4.6.1.2.2.5; 1.b.b.e Threats to EU Border System and Defence;162
4.6.1.2.2.6; 1.b.b.f Brexit;163
4.6.2; 2 The Structural Aspects as Principal Impediment to the EU Global Strategy;163
4.6.3; 3 Assessing EU integration of MS’ External Security Policy;165
5; Part 2 : Linking and Interdependence between the EU’s Security Policies;168
5.1; Introductory Remarks;172
5.1.1; 1 The Link between Internal and External Aspects of Security Policies;172
5.1.2; 2 Points of Departure;175
5.1.3; 3 The Global Context;176
5.1.4; 4 Operational Linking and Integration Deepening;177
5.1.5; 5 How the Analysis Will Proceed;178
5.2; Chapter 1: Finding an Analytical Order;182
5.2.1; 1 Enablers – the Tools of EU Policy;184
5.2.2; 2 Sum-up in 2014 – Outward-Oriented Operational Linking;185
5.2.2.1; 2.a Two Geographical Fronts;185
5.2.2.2; 2.b East and Southeast:;186
5.2.2.3; 2.c South:;186
5.2.2.4; 2.d Borders;187
5.2.2.5; 2.e Africa:;188
5.2.2.6; 2.f Serious Organised Crime;188
5.2.2.7; 2.g Terrorism;190
5.2.3; 3 Sum-up in 2014 – Inward-Oriented Operational Linking;191
5.2.3.1; 3.a UN Level;191
5.2.3.2; 3.b Internal Security and Global Operational Cooperation;193
5.2.3.3; 3.c International Police Organisation;193
5.2.4; 4 Individual States and Law Enforcement Authorities, Inward and Outward Operational Linking;195
5.2.5; 5 How to Differentiate between Internal (FSJ) and External (CSDP) Security Policies?;198
5.3; Chapter 2: The Two Security Policies – the Nature of their Interrelationship;203
5.3.1; 1 EU Home Affairs Diplomacy;204
5.3.1.1; 1.a EU Home Affairs Diplomacy vis-à-vis East and South-Eastern Europe, and Africa;205
5.3.1.1.1; 1.a.a Borders;206
5.3.1.1.2; 1.a.b Counterterrorism;207
5.3.1.1.3; 1.a.c Organised Crime – mainly in Drugs Trafficking;209
5.3.1.1.4; 1.a.d Intelligence Sharing;210
5.3.1.1.4.1; 1.a.d.a The Africa-Frontex Intelligence Community;211
5.3.2; 2 CSDP and Internal Security Policy;212
5.3.2.1; 2.a Military Flanking of FSJ-centred Missions;215
5.3.2.2; 2.b FSJ-Flanking of Military-centred Missions;215
5.3.3; 3 Remaining Weaknesses at the Level of EU-Enablers and Developments in 2014;217
5.3.3.1; 3.a Lack of ‘EU’-Operational Capabilities and Shared Competence;217
5.3.3.1.1; 3.a.a EU Internal Coordination Weaknesses;217
5.3.3.1.2; 3.a.b EU and Member States;218
5.3.3.1.3; 3.a.c Border Management and Mobility Partnerships;219
5.3.3.1.4; 3.a.d Funding;220
5.4; Chapter 3: The Developments of 2014-15;221
5.4.1; 1 Have the Weaknesses been Corrected?;221
5.4.1.1; 1.a The Commission’s ‘New Internal Security Strategy 2015-20’;221
5.4.1.1.1; 1.a.a The Commission;222
5.4.1.1.2; 1.a.b The Council and the Parliament;223
5.4.1.1.3; 1.a.c Concluding Assessment;224
5.4.1.2; 1.b Operational Linking and Leveraged Policies;225
5.4.2; 2 Terrorism, and Challenges to the EU Border System, and EU Reactions in 2014-15;226
5.4.2.1; 2.a Counterterrorism: Post-CharlieHebdo Accents Set by Foreign Ministers;227
5.4.2.2; 2.b The Increasing Importance of Internal Security Issues, in CSDP;228
5.4.2.2.1; 2.b.a Operational Linking of EU and EU-MS’ Internal Security Policy: Migrations and Security Challenges in the Central Mediterranean;229
5.4.2.2.2; 2.b.b EUFORNAVMed and Libyan Coast Guards;231
5.4.2.2.3; 2.b.c National Interests in EUNAVFORMed;234
5.4.2.2.3.1; 2.b.c.a Italy;235
5.4.2.2.3.2; 2.b.c.b Spain;235
5.4.2.2.3.3; 2.b.c.c The UK;237
5.4.3; 3 Migrant Smuggling and Security Challenges in the Eastern Mediterranean;237
5.4.3.1; 3.a Closing the Balkans-Route, Suspending the Schengen-Dublin-System;238
5.4.4; 4 The Crisis of a Policy of Operational Linking;240
5.4.4.1; 4.a The EU-Turkey Compromise of 2016;240
5.4.4.2; 4.b The Dimensions of the Challenge;243
5.4.4.3; 4.c The EU’s Options;244
5.4.5; 5 The ‚Global Strategy‘-Report of the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission;247
5.5; Conclusions: The Dynamic Interdependence of the EU’s External and Internal Security Policies;249
5.5.1; 1 The Development of Operational Linking;250
5.5.2; 2 The Rapprochement of Internal and External Security Policy;252
5.5.3; 3 How Do EU-MS Differentiate between the two Security Policies and their Application?;253
5.5.4; 4 Interdependence, Operational Linking and Integration Deepening;254
5.5.4.1; Part 2: Main points to retain on the operational linking – integration deepening issue.;257
6; Bibliography;259