N° 8, 2002/4 – Europe and Defense: Institutionalization and Europeanization
edited by Bastien Irondelle, Pascal Vennesson, 2002/4 (n°8)
Bastien Irondelle, Pascal Vennesson – European Defense: A Political Science Topic
Anand Menon – Playing with fire : the EU’s defence policy
The European Union has, since 1999, continued doggedly in its attemps to equip itself with a defence policy. Wathever the outcome of these efforts, the progress made rencently towards that end has been impressive. However, this article questions some of the prevalent claims and assumptions about the European Union’s security and defence policy, arguing that the implications of ESDP threatens to weaken rather than strengten Europe’s ability to confront threats to its security.
Hervé Dumez, Catherine Moury – A Defense-Focused Europe? Politics, Market , Regulation, and Transatlantic Relations
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.
Jolyon Howorth – The CESDP and the gorging of a european security culture
The forging pf a ge,io,e Eirpêa, Secirotu a,d Defence Policy (ESDP) will require the parallel construction of the basic elements of a European security culture. For the foreseeable future, this will be limited to situation assessment, approaches to problemsolving and policy-makin, and strategic objectives. However, it must involve the gradual reduction of the divergent patterns which have hitherto marked the approaches of the EU member states: allies and neutrals, “Atlanticists” and “Europeanists”, those favouring power projection and those prioritising territorial defence, emphases on military as opposed to civilian instruments, large states and small states, weapons systems providers and weapons systems consumers, nuclear and non-nuclear states. This articles assesses the challenge of narrowing those gaps in the process of creating a workable ESDP.
Florian Güssgen – The missing link : the non-europeanization of foreign services
There is a missing link in the European Union’s foreign policy capability: There is no integrated European organization of diplomacy. Ever since 1970 the construction of a European foreign service executive has remained disentangled from the reforms of national foreign services. In this article the author first defines the concept of foreign service Europeanization. He then reviews the development and the interplay of foreign service organization across three polities – the European Union, France and Germany – and across three decades (1970 and 2001). The author argues that governments have chosen the most expensive strategy of European foreign service organization conceivable. They have not chosen the most effective one.