scholarly journals The EU Methodology of Security and Defense Planning

2015 ◽  
pp. 142-153
Author(s):  
M. V. Alexandrov
Keyword(s):  
Planning Process ◽  
Military Force ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Strategic Uncertainty ◽  
Russian Scientific ◽  
The Us ◽  
Defence Policy ◽  
Long Term Forecasting ◽  
The Military ◽  
The Eu

Abstract: The article examines the methodology used within the European Union when planning the security and defence policy. The author analyses the key EU documents in this field, the structure of the respective EU bodies and the corresponding decision-making process. In particular, the article looks at the security and defence planning responsibilities of the European Council, the Military Committee and the Military Staff as well as the European Defence Agency. The author conducts a comparative analysis of the EU security and defence planning methodology with that of the US and NATO. He shows that the methodology is very similar. This concerns in particular the structural composition and the logics of the planning, its geographical scope and considerable propaganda component of respective public documents. Similarly to the US and NATO, the EU defence planning relies very little on the strategic forecasting. Instead the EU makes the principle of “strategic uncertainty” the corner stone of its policies. At the same time the EU widely uses elements of “dynamic forecasting” in its planning process, especially for short term forecasting periods. Moreover, the EU moved even further than the US and NATO along this road by applying the techniques that can be described as “dynamic planning”. At the same time the methodology of the EU security and defence planning has some significant specific features. This is explained by the fact, that the EU is mostly a civilian entity and military issues play only a small, though an important role in its work. Thus priority in its planning is given to civilian methods of promoting security, and the use of military force is regarded as the last resort. That is why the main accent in the EU security and defence policy is made on such instruments as crises management, political stabilization, peacekeeping operations and engagement of other states in all sorts of security and defence partnerships. This article is prepared in the framework of the Russian Scientific Fund project 14-18-02973 “Long term forecasting of the development of international relations”.

scholarly journals Hands Across The Atlantic?

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry Young ◽  
Peggy Crawford
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
Post War ◽  
Military Campaign ◽  
The Military ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Great Burden ◽  
The Eu

The war in Iraq created a division between the United States and some members of the European Union. The war also split the EU, with France and Germany leading the anti-war camp and Britain, Italy, Portugal, and Spain supporting Washington. With organized warfare over, the United States has shifted its attention from the military campaign to the installation of a legitimate and stable government in Iraq. However, the administration of post-war Iraq has caused the division between the US and Europe to widen.The multilateralists, France and Germany, are demanding a central role for the UN in rebuilding Iraq. France, in particular, believes that the task should be left to the UN alone. They suggest this would help legitimize what they consider to be an illegal war. On the other hand, the US, which accepted a great burden with the pre-emptive attack on Iraq, wants the UN to have a vital but limited role in post-war Iraq. The US believes that the UN needs serious repair before any responsibilities can be handed to it.This study examines the economic, political, and security implications of the division between these old allies. The relationship between the US and EU is based on years of cooperation. Both sides know that they must mend fences sooner rather than later. We contend that pragmatism will triumph over geo-politics.

TTIP, CETA, and TiSA Behind Closed Doors

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panagiotis Delimatsis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Trade Negotiations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

Secrecy and informality rather than transparency traditionally reign trade negotiations at the bilateral, regional, and multilateral levels. Yet, transparency ranks among the most basic desiderata in the grammar of global governance and has been regarded as positively related to legitimacy. In the EU’s case, transparent trade diplomacy is quintessential for constitutional—but also for broader political—reasons. First, even if trade matters fall within the EU’s exclusive competence, the EU executive is bound by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to inform the European Parliament, the EU co-legislator, in regular intervals. Second, transparency at an early stage is important to address public reluctance, suspicion, or even opposition regarding a particular trade deal. This chapter chronicles the quest for and turning moments relating to transparency during the EU trade negotiations with Canada (CETA); the US (TTIP), and various WTO members on services (TiSA).

scholarly journals The Trend of Scientific Productivity of Chinese, EuropeanUnion, and United States Universities and Private Companies: Does the Future Belong to E-Technology Companies?

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Mauro G. Carta ◽  
Matthias C. Angermeyer ◽  
Silvano Tagliagambe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
American Universities ◽  
The Us ◽  
Parametric Statistics ◽  
The Eu

The purpose is to verify trends of scientific production from 2010 to 2020, considering the best universities of the United States, China, the European Union (EU), and private companies. The top 30 universities in 2020 in China, the EU, and the US and private companies were selected from the SCImago institutions ranking (SIR). The positions in 2020, 2015, and 2010 in SIR and three sub-indicators were analyzed by means of non-parametric statistics, taking into consideration the effect of time and group on rankings. American and European Union universities have lost positions to Chinese universities and even more to private companies, which have improved. In 2020, private companies have surpassed all other groups considering Innovation as a sub-indicator. The loss of leadership of European and partly American universities mainly concerns research linked to the production of patents. This can lead to future risks of monopoly that may elude public control and cause a possible loss of importance of research not linked to innovation.

scholarly journals Comparative Aspects Regarding The Regulation Of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 424-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florin Fainisi ◽  
Victor Al. Fainisi
Keyword(s):  
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles ◽  
North Atlantic ◽  
Civil Aviation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Chicago Convention ◽  
The North ◽  
Aerial Vehicles ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Military ◽  
Legislative Measures

Abstract The technology of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) has constantly developed in the last decade, becoming a key feature of the military programs and operations in Europe and the US, and the industry market has considerably grown. The vast majority of this growth is at the US level, whose military budget is bigger than of any other state in the world. On the other hand, with respect to the civil market, the sale of these kinds of aircrafts is in its initial stages, even though there are lots of fields in which it can be applied. In general, the states have begun to take legislative measures so that the unmanned flight of such an aircraft in areas open to civil aircrafts is controlled, so that any danger to the civil aircrafts should be avoided. The countries of the European Union that have not legislated this field are subject to Regulation 216/2008/EC regarding common norms in the civil aviation field and the Chicago Convention. Furthermore, all EU states are NATO members and thus apply in principle the norms established by the North-Atlantic Organization.

Eine Gabe an St. Nimmerlein? - Zur zeitlichen Dimension der Schuldenbremse

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 246-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friedrich Heinemann
Keyword(s):  
Disposable Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Northern European ◽  
Current Economic Crisis ◽  
Automatic Stabilizer ◽  
The Us ◽  
Income Shock ◽  
Large Heterogeneity ◽  
Automatic Stabilizers ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper analyzes the effectiveness of the tax and transfer systems in the European Union and the US to act as an automatic stabilizer in the current economic crisis. We consider two scenarios: a proportional income shock and a shock on employment which increases the rate of unemployment.We find that automatic stabilizers absorb 38 per cent of a proportional income shock in the EU, compared to 32 per cent in the US. In the case of an unemployment shock 48 per cent of the shock is absorbed in the EU, compared to 34 per cent in the US. Under the assumption that only credit constrained households adjust current spending on consumption goods to current disposable income, the cushioning of disposable income leads to a demand stabilization of 26 to 35 per cent in the EU and 19 per cent in the US. There is large heterogeneity within the EU. Automatic stabilizers in Eastern and Southern Europe are much lower than in Central and Northern European countries. With respect to income stabilization, Germany is above the European average for both scenarios. Demand stabilization in Germany is weaker because the number of liquidity constrained households is below the EU average.

Europe and the European Union

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara de Franco ◽  
Christoph Meyer ◽  
Karen E. Smith
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Conflict Prevention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Eu

This chapter analyses acceptance and implementation of the norm of the responsibility to protect by the European Union and its member states. Although European states have accepted the norm, and supported its development at the UN, progress in implementing it has been patchier. The chapter looks at the degree to which there has been programmatic, bureaucratic and operational implementation of the norm by the EU in particular. It finds there are wide divergences in Europe over the use of military force with regard to pillar 3 of R2P, a lack of EU bureaucratic capacity and will to implement pillars 1 and 2 of R2P, and confusion over the clarity of the norm which has led to the conflation of conflict prevention with mass atrocity prevention.

scholarly journals Wpływ wyjścia Zjednoczonego Królestwa z Unii Europejskiej na wspólną politykę bezpieczeństwa i obrony UE

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomasz Kubin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Research Question ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Defence Policy ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Common Security

The exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union (so-called Brexit) is one of the most important events in the process of European integration. It has a lot of extremely remarkable implications – both for the EU and for the United Kingdom. Among other, Brexit will affect the security of the United Kingdom and the EU. The aim of the study is to answer the research question: how will Britain’s exit from the EU influence the EU common security and defence policy? In order to answer this question, the factors that are most relevant to the United Kingdom’s significance for the EU’s security and defence policy will be identified. This will show how the EU’s potential of the security and defence policy will change, when the UK leaves this organisation. The most important conclusions are included in the summary.

European Union and China Relations in the Light of Changing Global Order

2020 ◽  
pp. 417-434
Author(s):  
Sedef Eylemer ◽  
Elif Cemre Besgur
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Relationship Context ◽  
Normative Identity ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Normative Basis ◽  
Strategic Perspective ◽  
Trade Wars ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU), United States (US), and China are the main global drivers of the international trade system. However, trade wars between them create tensions in the world. As the world is facing increasing neo-protectionist trade applications of the Trump administration, this chapter analyses whether a greater convergence between China and the EU is possible for protecting multilateralism through two case studies, namely (1) market conditions and discrimination, (2) cybersecurity. In this context, the chapter argues that although the US pressure has led the EU to rapprochement with China, this situation creates a dilemma for the EU in terms of the fears about the problems of alignment with the normative identity of the EU. Whereas the EU aims at regulating the global trade on a normative basis originating from its acquis, China has a more strategic perspective based upon specific relationship context. It is difficult to take a side for the EU due to its different standpoint compared to China in defending the multilateral trading system.

Government Funding of E-collaboration Research in the European Union

2009 ◽  
pp. 142-150
Author(s):  
Ned Kock ◽  
Pedro Antunes
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Information Society ◽  
National Science Foundation ◽  
Government Funding ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Government Investment ◽  
The Us ◽  
National Science ◽  
Us Government ◽  
The Eu

Government funding of e-collaboration research in both the US and EU seems to be growing. In the EU, a key initiative to promote governmental investment in e-collabo-ration research is the Collaboration@Work initiative. This initiative is one of the EU’s Information Society Technologies Directorate General’s main priorities. In the US, government investment in e-collaboration research is channeled through several gov-ernment branches and organizations, notably the National Science Foundation. There are key differences in the approaches used for government funding of e-collaboration research in the EU and US. Some of these differences are discussed here, as well as related implications.

1. International Relations and the European Union

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Hill ◽  
Michael Smith ◽  
Sophie Vanhoonacker
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Defence Policy ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
The Eu

This edition examines the contexts in which the European Union has reflected and affected major forces and changes in international relations (IR) by drawing on concepts such as balance of power, multipolarity, multilateralism, interdependence, and globalization. It explores the nature of policymaking in the EU's international relations and the ways in which EU policies are pursued within the international arena. Topics include the EU's role in the global political economy, how the EU has developed an environmental policy, and how it has attempted to graft a common defence policy onto its generalized foreign and security policy. This chapter discusses the volume's methodological assumptions and considers three perspectives on IR and the EU: the EU as a subsystem of IR, the EU and the processes of IR, and the EU as a power in IR. It also provides an overview of the chapters that follow.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document