What are the key instruments for foreign policy for EU actorness externally? (5)
- CSDP/ESS/GSS
- IFS: Instrument for Stability (IfS): a security and peace building initiative whereby EU engages with other partners and institutions in order to build peace and prevent conflicts
- Sanctions
- Election observers
- Regional approach
What were the capabilities of Petersberg Tasks pre-lisbon?
- Humanitarian and rescue tasks
- conflict prevention and peace-keeping
- combat forces in crisis management
What benefit does making PSO’s subject to UN commitments? (4 Gs)
What does this show the EU as?
- greater effectiveness of eu
- greater engagement
- effective multilateralism
- greater legitimacy
Shows EU as an institutions whom values partnership in missions and multilateralism for missions to go ahead, rather than being an autonomous actor as in a state
What are 4 frames of EU strategic behaviour?
- security-development nexus
- human security imperative
- preference for local enforcement (tells us that EU rely on other actors as emphasis on supplying and training
- invitation
What are the main points of the EU in the DRC mission?
- Outside Europe: The first rapid reaction response outside of Europe and first autonomous action of Europe
- Big involvement: Also a big mark of European cooperation at an EU level (involved quite a lot of MS but not all) – Germany, Hungary, Finland involved (in terms of military contributions, most came from the framework nation (a country is assigned as the framework nation who will supply the military capabilities and spearhead the mission – this was France in this mission)
- Success by all: it was supposed to decrease the conflict, bring certain parties back to the debating table and bring the mission back to the UN – succeeded.
- External actor support: External actor cooperation (with UN and other states e.g. Canada and SA came under the command of the EU)
- Mission in Bunia (In DRC) Operation ARTEMIS (was to ensure decrease in conflict and a rehanding over of that region to the UN)
How has the EU evolved since the DRC mission? (Think Mali Missions)
- CEWS and PRISM: Conflict prevention and mediation
- Training Mil/Civ: Emphasis on capacity building and training (both military and civilian)
Military: e.g. EUTM (EU training mission) in Mali to train Malian combat forces against specific challenges of asymmetrical warfare and violent terrorism
Civilian: e.g. EUCAP to help HR training and policing
What does the GSS say of the EU as being a global actor?
- How and Who: Co-constitutive nature of EU as a security global actor (we cannot just look to say what the EU says, we must look at how it actually does it, and look at the people it works with, as it seems to be in constant partnership, and what does literature say? What is says it wants to do and what it actually does, does not occur in some kind of vacuum)
- Principled Pragmatism: the idea that the EU can actually DO what it SAYS IT will DO. It is quite different from the European security strategy as the European security strategy was idealistic, whereas the GSS was to look what it can do.
- Natalie Tochi (considered one of the most powerful people in the world now): She wrote the global security strategy – an academic having a huge impact on policies
What does it mean to be practicing effective multilateralism?
How may we consider this to be a constraint? Example?
- Various levels: Working at various levels (Member state level, region to region level, partnership level (with the country, with the UN, NATO, Etc)
- UN go: Working within the UN remit
- Constraint: A constraint to EU global security actorness? (good for legitimacy, but puts a constraint on EU’s global security actorness e.g. Germany in Libya was hesitant to send troops as African Union was unconvinced intervention had to be militarily… and given the partnership the AU and EU has, it would have been disturbing to do so…)
What are the pros and cons to EU deliberately choosing to do security with others?
Pros:
- legitimacy and pragmatism (two heads better than one)
Cons:
- Restrains EU’s global actress: ‘why wasn’t EU in libya’ (Germany)
Highlight main points of Davis’ ‘Make do, or mend? EU security provision in complex conflicts: the DRC’?
(Principles, Inward Focus, Settling)
- Make do, or mend?: Looks at whether the EU contributes to long-term positive changes in societies emerging from violent conflict, helping them to ‘mend’ or whether it simply encourages societies to ‘make do’
- Two principles: Two main principles of study from the Treaty: Peace and Justice for human rights violations
- Principle to Practice: Looks at how these two principles turn into policies and whether they work in practice (looks at EU peace mediation, transitional justice, and security sector reform in general in DRC)
- Practice -> Policy: Practice often predates policy, so principles do in fact come into practice and policy. However, there is a lack of coherence at EU level both within and across institutions
- Focus inward: Greater coherence between principle, policy and practice, rather than between institutions would improve EU security provision and enable prioritisation.
- Settling for making do: If the EU settles for ‘making do’, it undermines its potential to contribute to long-term solutions to complex conflicts
What is the main aim of Ramazan’s ‘Towards European security integration: Boundaries of European security and defence policy’?
What are his findings?
- Constrained?: Looks at three books and how they can tell us the boundaries to which EU security and defence policy is constrained and how this has changed with the given policies over the years
Findings:
- 9/11: End of CW led to a lot of changes e.g. 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan
- Vague: Supranational and intergovernmental layout of EU remains v. vague
- WIP: European security and defence can be best characterised as a ‘work in progress’
