Civilian CSPD Missions as European Union's Response to International Crises: Selected Aspects of Crisis Management

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (36) ◽  
pp. 64-93
Author(s):  
Mirosław Lipka

This article provides an overview of EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions’ crisis management achievements and challenges since 2003, in connection with the European External Action Service (EEAS), the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) Directorate, and their respective roles. The analysis describes and evaluates the changes in the overall political and security context and the EU’s approach, suggesting some of the consequences in the launch and implementation of civilian CSDP Missions. The article also discusses the evolution of the EU’s integrated approach to external conflict and crises, and its cooperation with other security actors. The concluding remarks compare achievements and shortcomings of ongoing missions against their mandates and objectives, outlining some selected EU initiatives which aim at improving the EU’s performance in crisis management situations.

2014 ◽  
pp. 68-91
Author(s):  
Marek Brylonek

In 1999, soon after the European Union member states had decided to establish the European Security and Defence Policy, the processes of appointing adequate tools for its accomplishment also started. Decisions were made to create organs and institutions and to elaborate appropriate procedures which would enable fast and precise decision-making of planning and conduct in the field of security and defence. Since that time the European Union and its Security and Defence Policy have evolved in many aspects and are still evolving. Security researchers currently attempt to provide the answer to an important problem: what are the trends characterising changes in the Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union. The author, basing on research and own experiences of work in the politico-strategic planning structures of the European External Action Service, analyses current trends in the Common Security and Defence Policy, especially regarding the evolution of the Union’s organs and institutions, crisis management procedures, implementation of comprehensive approach and tendencies in the newly-deployed missions. This material is a result of extensive discussions and consultations conducted within a broad international and interinstitutional crisis management environment. It is based on interviews with high-level subject-related personnel and the listed bibliography


2021 ◽  
pp. 199-218
Author(s):  
Bilbil Kastrati ◽  
Samo Uhan

Abstract. The article considers whether the EU’s CSDP missions are a suitable crisis management mechanism for post-conflict situations, along with the EU’s relevance in crisis management at all. For this purpose, the EU’s biggest CSDP civilian mission EULEX was chosen as a research case study. The research results reveal that EULEX has not implemented its mandate, not met the expectations of security consumers, not made any difference on the ground, and cannot be seen as an example the EU should rely on in its future missions. Further, EULEX shows that CSDP missions suffer from many shortfalls and the EU CFSP from a capability–expectations gap. The article concludes that the EULEX mission does not show the EU’s relevance in the crisis management of post-conflict situations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-64
Author(s):  
Krisztina Juhász

Abstract Hungary joined the European Union in 2004 but started to participate in EU crisis management operations well before. Since the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) was a new policy area at that time, it was an extraordinary experience for Hungary to be integrated into a policy still under development. Aft er briefly detailing the foreign and security policy options Hungary faced right after the transition from communism, this paper analyses Hungary’s contribution to the CSDP. The CSDP is based on two pillars — one operational and the other related to capability-building. The paper first analyses Hungary’s participation in the civilian and military operations launched in the framework of the CSDP. Specifically, it explores the operations Hungary has joined, the kind of capacities it has contributed and the deficiencies and problems that have emerged in this sphere. Second, the paper addresses Hungary’s perspectives and aspirations regarding capability development. Specifically, it looks at how Hungary views the future of the CSDP, especially in light of the country’s participation in permanent structured cooperation (PESCO), the central element in the EU’s joint defence capability development. Methodologically, the paper employs qualitative content and discourse analysis, drawing on relevant secondary literature and analyses of official EU and Hungarian (legislative and non-legislative) documents. Surveying Hungary’s participation in EU crisis management operations since the beginning of the CSDP, the paper finds it has joined 42 per cent of civilian and 70 per cent of military operations. These have been in the immediate neighbourhood but also distant locations (Africa, Central Asia, and the Near East). At the same time, distinct challenges have hampered Hungary’s contribution to certain operations, such as a dearth of foreign language skills and a lack of strategic airlift and mobile logistics capabilities. The paper also finds that regional defence cooperation was not the central driver of cooperation within PESCO projects. Overall, Hungary is somewhere in the middle of the pack in terms of the number of PESCO projects it participates in.


2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 200-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Keohane

In 1999, few people would have predicted that the EU would send ships to Somalia, police to Afghanistan, judges to Kosovo and soldiers to Chad. Yet, that is exactly what the EU has been doing. The European Security and Defence policy (ESDP) –since renamed the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) – was launched shortly after NATO’s war in Kosovo in June 1999, to ensure that Europeans could respond to international crises, including launching operations, without depending on the US (via NATO). Since 2003 the EU has initiated some 24 peace-support operations in Europe, Africa and Asia, using both civil and military resources, and some of these missions have had impressive results. However, at times there have been some real difficulties with CSDP operations, ranging from resource shortages, intermittent political support from Member States, and a lack of coordination between EU actors. Lessons already identified in the crisis management debate point to two fundamental factors of success. First, a comprehensive approach that brings together the different actors deployed in the field. Second, the resilience of the political and material commitment of crisis management actors, possibly over many years. Both these factors pose important questions for the future of EU peace operations.


2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 454-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hylke Dijkstra

The European Union (EU) has launched an impressive number of crisis management missions since its Common Security and Defence Policy became operational in 2003. This article analyses the agenda-setting phase of these civilian and military operations in order to explain why the EU has sent troops, policemen, judges, prosecutors and monitors across three continents. It presents an institutionalist perspective and argues that the former High Representative Javier Solana and his officials have been instrumental in putting various operations on the agenda. They have employed deliberate agenda-setting strategies, such as venue shopping, conflict expansion and issue framing, to further their bureaucratic interest of launching new missions. Solana and his officials had the ability to affect the agenda-setting process thanks to their pivotal position in policy making. This gave them with superior information on the state of play and an early mover advantage as well as strong international networks. The article provides empirical evidence from the crisis management missions in Aceh, Bosnia, Chad and Kosovo. It concludes with the changes to the Common Security and Defence Policy after the Treaty of Lisbon.


2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Thym

European Union – Common Foreign and Security Policy – Changes with the abolition of the pillar structure by the Lisbon Treaty – Common Security and Defence Policy – Executive order of the EU – Between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism – The role of the High Representative – Joint political leadership – The European External Action Service as an administrative infrastructure – Constitutionalisation of foreign affairs


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document