Contemporary Policy Challenges Identity in the EU

The author of the article attempts to use the theories of the European identity, memory politics, identity politics by placing them in the context of the European (international) security. The author considers it fundamentally important to pay attention not so much to the threats to European identity, but to how identity is used to legitimize foreign policy of the European Union. The article highlights such perspectives of this problem as the confrontation inside the EU on the politics of memory and identity and the justification of the EU foreign policy towards Russia by the need to protect the European identity and European values. The author uses the discourse-analysis and identity research methods. The main emphasis is placed on the competitiveness of identity politics and the possibilities of using it for political purposes, to legitimize solutions to ensure the security of the European Union and the world as a whole.

EU Military Operations as a Tool in the EU’s Foreign Policy Toolbox – The Main Trends and Limitations

The main aim of the article is to characterise and analyse EU military operations, taking into account their objectives, assumptions, successes as well as their limitations and weaknesses. The author focusses his research on EU activities in Sub-Saharan Africa. The following research questions were posed: – what is the specifi city and characteristic features of EU military crisis management operations; – to what extent and in what direction are military operations launched by the EU evolving; – in what way do EU military operations infl uence the perception of the EU as a civilian and normative power and affect the development of the EU as a security actor; – what are the main limitations and weaknesses of EU military operations and what is their future in EU foreign policy? The author applied the following research methods: factorial, comparative, scenario, quantitative, and qualitative analysis. The main conclusion is that the EU’s military operations and its military training missions should solely be perceived as one of the elements (measures) in EU foreign policy. As has been indicated in the title of the article, they are “a tool in the EU’s foreign policy toolbox”.

Migration issues in the EU’s common foreign and security policy – selected aspects

In the discussion on the EU migration policy, it is impossible to evade the issue of the relation between this policy and the EU foreign policy, including EU common foreign and security policy. The subject of this study are selected links between migration issues and the CFSP of the European Union. The presented considerations aim to determine at what levels and in what ways the EU’s migration policy is taken into account in the space of the CFSP as a diplomatic and political (and subject to specific rules and procedures) substrate of the EU’s external action.

The European Union as a Security Actor in the Sahel

In the past decade, the EU has significantly stepped up its profile as a security actor in the Sahel. Drawing on historical institutionalism, we conceptualise path-dependencies and lock-in effects as elements of a “foreign policy entrapment” spiral to analyse the EU’s policies towards the Sahel. Specifically, we seek to explain the EU’s increasingly widened and deepened engagement in the region. Hence, this article traces the evolution of the EU’s Sahel policy both in discourse and implementation. We identify a predominant security narrative as well as a regionalisation narrative and show that EU action has followed these narratives. Based on this analysis, we argue that the evolution of the EU’s Sahel policy can be understood as a case of “foreign policy entrapment”. Initial decisions on the overall direction of EU foreign policy have created strong path-dependencies and lock-in effects that make it difficult for EU policy-makers to change the policy course.

Pre-Eminent or Subordinate? An Organisational Environment Perspective on the EU’s Security Cooperation with asean and ecowas

Security cooperation with other regional organisations (ros) has long been a facet of EU foreign policy. The EU’s relationships with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (asean) and the Economic Community of West African States (ecowas) illustrate the variety of the EU’s engagement. In West Africa, the EU is a pre-eminent actor, occasionally dictating an agenda and marginalising ecowas. In Southeast Asia, the EU remains subordinate, facing an uphill battle for relevance in the security sphere and a closer relationship to asean. Prevailing explanations focus on the EU’s internal characteristics or bilateral cooperation dynamics, but fail to fully explain this discrepancy. Based on new interview information, this article argues that the organisational environment also affects the EU’s security cooperation with asean and ecowas. The presence of competitive environments limits the EU’s role in security cooperation and relegates it to a subordinate role. In the absence of competition, the EU is allowed to become pre-eminent.

Introduction: Weathering the Storm?

Promoting peace and security in Europe, its neighbourhood, and in the world, is at the heart of how the European Union (EU) understands itself and its global political role. In recent years, however, both the tangible role of the EU in fostering peace beyond its borders and the Union’s famous image as a ‘normative power’ have met substantial challenges. The challenges, which fundamentally alter the context in which the EU supports peace and security, include EU-internal factors, such as democratic backsliding in some member states, electoral success of populist far right parties, or disagreements over migration. They also include external factors, notably the unravelling transatlantic relationship under President Trump or the rise of China in the peace and security domain. This article introduces the special issue ‘Weathering the Storm? The EU as a Global Peace and Security Actor in Turbulent Times’. It first discusses the numerous tests the EU faces in fostering peace beyond its borders, and how past research has evaluated and interpreted the effect of these challenges on EU foreign policy. It then outlines two interrelated shortcomings of past research: an ‘EU navel-gazing’ and focus on how EU policies come into being in Brussels, rather than studying how these policies are implemented ‘on the ground’ – coupled with a lack of interdisciplinary conceptual and empirical debate between peace and conflict research and European Studies. Finally, it discusses how the articles that make up this special issue help to address these shortcomings and how they contribute to the current trend in blurring the lines between domestic and international politics.

EU Policy in Central Asia

Geography and a preference for regional approaches have an impact on EU foreign policy. From the EU perspective, the countries of Central Asia are classified as “neighbors of EU neighbors.” The EU’s policies assume the existence of strong centripetal forces in the Eurasian heartland, whereas in fact the regionalization is still in the initial stages there. Consequently, EU foreign policy in Central Asia pursues both structural and relational objectives. The specific goals and performance of EU member states add a two-tier dimension to this process. In parallel with other external actors such as Japan, the United States, South Korea, and India, the European Union conducts its dialogue and cooperation with the Central Asian states in a 5+1 format. Compared to the policies of China, Turkey, or Russia, the EU has much more limited influence. It primarily aims to support the independent development of the Central Asian countries, for which some degree of regionalization appears to be a prerequisite.