EU’s Security Strategy

The EU seeks to affirm itself as a major actor within the realm of international relations, trying to promote key democratic values throughout its network of diplomatic missions. Thus, EU’s foreign and internal policies are constructed as to commonly represent member states in global issues as a well-defined political entity of its own. It is through these lenses that we can observe the ways in which EU’s efforts, to remain a major global actor, are diminished because the entity lacks the force (self-reliant army) through which it could efficiently represent its military interests. The only military might, at EU’s disposal, being member state’s own troops, which can be deployed in emergency-related situations through the common security policy. As such, there are some foreign and defence ministers from the community block which are demanding, after the Afghanistan chaotic developments, an increased military independence for both the EU and its intervention forces. On a similar tone, Josep Borrell Fontelles, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, believes that it is the right time for EU to form its own military corps. Furthermore, overseeing the emerging security contexts, to which NATO responded by engaging into an ample transformation and adaptation process, we can underline some key developments, which showcase the need to revaluate EU’s military efforts, especially in terms of using its capabilities and capacities as a primordial source of credibility. As citizens’ security remains one of Brussels’ main objectives, and one of the primordial European institutions’ responsibilities, they have put forward and accepted, almost two decades ago, the European Security Strategy, which has established, for the first time, tangible goals, and objectives when it comes to protecting EU’s interests in terms of security and defence. It is this document which transforms the current approach across the continent, and its analysis can prove a starting ground for punctual optimizations to take place, to gain resilience in the face of alternative or emerging threats and risks.

Global Threats and European security: Reassessing Pro-national European Nationalism

The European Union currently faces a plethora of security threats, which are global in nature, cause and treatment. This dangerous situation has not only put the key European humanistic and democratic values at risk, but also the European project in itself. Moreover, it has emphasised the need for redefining its ideological limitations. Under this prism, two main questions arise: How can one perceive Europeanism today, and to what extent can old European nationalist conceptions contribute to a better understanding of Europe’s current global security strategy? In this context, this work tests the demonstration and relevance of Giuseppe Mazzini’s pro-national European nationalism rhetoric in the current European security agenda. The methodological approach to this challenge is based on an essentially conceptual analysis of the European security strategy, focusing on ‘The Global strategy for the foreign and security policy of the European Union’, in light of Mazzini’s thoughts of nationalism and unity, as presented in his work. The main argument of this paper is that the concept of Pro-national European Nationalism is present in the current security documents. However, this seems to limit the ambition of the vision itself.

The European Union and the Liberal International Order in the Age of ‘America First’: Attempted Hedging and the Willingness-Capacity Gap

The crisis of the Liberal International Order (LIO) has resulted in, and been amplified by, the unilateral turn taken by the United States (US) under the Trump presidency. In this sense, ‘America First’ resulted in revisionism by the system leader vis-à-vis an order the US created and led for decades. This shift away from a historical US liberal hegemony has been even more consequential as it resulted in a leadership crisis and translated into episodes of rupture within the transatlantic community, which constitutes the backbone of the LIO. While the European Union (EU) initially positioned itself as a follower of the US, today it appears to oppose American ‘illiberalism’ through its rhetoric of ‘principled pragmatism’, expressed in an increasing number of issues. Building on the concept of leadership, this article analyses whether and to what extent the EU has the willingness to uphold LIO leadership and to what extent it is strategically equipped to do so. Following an analysis of the 2003 European Security Strategy and 2016 EU Global Strategy in order to comprehend better the EU’s relationship with the LIO and its willingness to lead, the article builds on two brief case studies: the America First trade policy and the Iran nuclear agreement. In turn, this facilitates examination of the EU’s capacity to lead and determination of the extent to which this leadership is accepted by other actors. The article argues that, while being limited by American preponderance over international issues, the EU is faced with a willingness-capacity gap but still attempts to uphold the LIO through pragmatic leadership by hedging.

The European Union’s Security Conceptualisation vs. its Risk Prevention Capabilities

The European Union, as an area of unquestionable prosperity, on which the countries that make up it have been working since the 1950s, faces the constant challenge of combating threats to the security of its societies. In a changing world, these threats are constantly evolving. They were first summarised in the European Security Strategy and the list of threats was revised in Global Strategy published in 2016. The Union is therefore aware both of the processes of change in international relations and of the threats that this entails for the Union, its Member States and society. Does this awareness motivate Member States and EU authorities to consolidate their defence efforts? Are the measures to address the risks to the Union adequate to the degree of danger? Are the policies of the Union so developed as to maintain peace of mind in the face of threats? This article analyses the risks and attempts to answer these questions.

Mining the EU Global Strategy of 2016

This study proposes to apply an automated lexical analysis to the European Security Strategy of 2003, entitled “A Secure Europe in a Better World”, and the European Union Global Strategy of 2016, entitled “Shared Vision, Common Acton: A Stronger Europe”. The findings are not limited to supporting the predominant interpretations of scholars and experts, but aim at exploring the usefulness of text mining techniques in the interpretation of EU documents. Furthermore, the conclusions drawn from the lexical analysis are discussed in the light of complex systems theory, which may be beneficial for the proper understanding of the concept of resilience (mainly its multidimensional nature) and its subsequent operationalization. The last part of the paper includes an in-depth analysis of the EU rhetoric on the UN fora (period: 2014–2019) regarding the concept of resilience, in particular its linkages with human rights.

17. Foreign, Security, and Defence Policy

This chapter examines the gradual development of foreign and security policy cooperation among European Union member states. It begins with a discussion of the hesitant moves from European political cooperation (EPC) to a common foreign and security policy (CFSP), along with the emergence of a common security and defence policy (CSDP) as part of CFSP. It then considers CFSP in the context of eastern enlargement and the significance of the Treaty of Lisbon for EU foreign and security policy. It also looks at the intervention in Iraq and the adoption of a European Security Strategy, as well as CSDP missions and operations. Finally, it analyses the underlying theme of national sovereignty combined with EU-level capacity through a range of examples.

Fragility and resilience in the European Union's security strategy: comparing policy paradigms

The article takes fragility and resilience as distinct policy paradigms, and proposes a structured, focused comparison of how they informed and changed the EU approach to conflict and crisis management in time. The first section provides a cumulative synthesis of the debate on fragility and resilience in the international and European security discourse and practice on the background of which their comparison is built. By analysing the founding documents respectively endorsing fragility and resilience in the European context, namely the 2003 European Security Strategy and the 2016 European Union Global Strategy in addition to the existing literature on these topics, the two paradigms are examined in terms of (1) what understanding of the international system they advance; (2) where they identify the locus of the threat; (3) which role they attribute to the international community (4) and the type of solutions they proposed. In accordance with our results, we conclude that the two paradigms are not in competition, since they emerged from and reflected a contingent shift in global and local environments. Moreover, rather than providing a novel lens to better look at conflict and crisis situation, resilience is found to offer more insights into the EU's perception of its role in these contexts.

Europejska Strategia Bezpieczeństwa 2003–2008. Analiza politologiczna

In 2003, the Council of Europe, the highest political organ of the European Union, resolved to adopt the European Security Strategy. This document outlined three fundamental objectives for the EU: stability and good governance in the area of the EU’s closest neighbors; creating an international order that would be based not only on bilateral relations, but primarily on efficient multilateral relations; and preventing threats, whether new or traditional. The Strategy assumed that the EU would take the responsibility for international security both in the realm of ‘peace keeping’ (peace and defensive missions) and ‘peace-making’ (peace and offensive missions). Defining the threats that the European Union needs to defy, the Strategy enumerates local conflicts, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their potential use against the territory of the EU and its member states, collapsing states, and conflicts breaking out in such states and their neighborhood, as well as organized crime. The assessment of numerous threats to internal and external security, presented in the European Security Strategy, remains up-to-date. There have also emerged new threats for Europe that result from the need to ensure energy security, primarily with respect to the diversification of energy sources. The significance of climate change to international security has increased. The same applies to IT security or piracy. The EU has been rather anxious about the intensification of frozen conflicts, in particular the outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia. The Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has indicated that the enlargement process is a significant stabilizing factor in the EU neighborhood. Fundamental importance is also attached to the review of cooperation principles with the USA, the crucial role of the UN in the international system, and cooperation with regional organizations, such as the African Union. There is also the need to develop a strategic partnership with NATO, in particular in terms of operational cooperation. Another key factor in the strengthening of the EU’s global position is the development of a civil and military crisis response system.