Publish in OALib Journal

ISSN: 2333-9721

APC: Only $99


Any time

2012 ( 1 )

2011 ( 2 )

2010 ( 11 )

2009 ( 4 )

Custom range...

Search Results: 1 - 10 of 37 matches for " CFSP/ESDP "
All listed articles are free for downloading (OA Articles)
Page 1 /37
Display every page Item
[Book Review] Gunther Hauser & Franz Kernic (eds) (2006). European Security in Transition. Aldershot: Ashgate
Theofanis Exadaktylos,Kyriakos Kouveliotis
Journal of Contemporary European Research , 2008,
Abstract: Book Review
Managing the Civil-Military Interface in the EU: Creating an Organisation Fit for Purpose
Per Martin Norheim-Martinsen
European Integration Online Papers , 2010,
Abstract: The establishment of ESDP/CSDP in 1999 has been accompanied by the anticipation that the European Union will represent a unique strategic actor because of its ability to mix civilian and military crisis management instruments as part of a comprehensive approach. But to what extent is this characteristic reflected in the EU’s civil-military organisation? The EU is clearly not a state, but it does embody certain non-intergovernmental characteristics that set it beyond a 'normal' inter-state organisation or alliance, the expansion of the role of the administrative level being one of them. The development of a well-functioning civil-military organisation is important in this regard, but appropriate benchmarks for what such an organisation would look like are missing from the current EU debate. A problem is that, when focusing on the novelty and uniqueness of the EU’s comprehensive approach, institutional change is often treated as a good in itself. However, by contrasting and using two classical models for organising civil-military relations – Samuel Huntington’s so-called 'normal', or separated model, and Morris Janowitz’ 'constabulary', or integrated model – as benchmarks, the article shows that institutional innovations have largely sustained a separation of the civil-military interface, despite the stated objective of developing an EU 'culture of coordination'. This situation reflects the inherent tension between a traditional civil-military culture with deep roots in the Member States, on the one hand, and an evolving 'in-house' civil-military culture within the Council Secretariat, on the other. When it comes to ESDP/CSDP, certain Member States have used institutional reform as a way to push through national agendas, producing frequent but often ineffective institutional change. At the same time, there has been a lack of attention inside the Council Secretariat paid to effective measures for breaking down professional and cultural barriers between military officers and civilian personnel.
A Democratically Accountable External Action Service: Three Scenarios
Jozef Bátora
European Integration Online Papers , 2010,
Abstract: Democratic accountability is an aspect that seems to have been almost entirely overlooked in the discussions on the evolving role of the European External Action Service (EEAS). In modern democratic societies, it is increasingly difficult to sustain the claim that foreign policy and diplomacy are incompatible with democratic decision-making and accountability. What is more, for the external service representing the EU as an entity aspiring to play the role of a mentor in state- and democracy-building processes in various countries around the world, ensuring democratic accountability necessarily becomes a key concern. While this is the case, the literature on the EEAS has at best only partially addressed this issue so far. This article seeks to bridge that gap and discuss ways of how democratic accountability could be ensured in the EEAS in its various possible organizational configurations. It hence addresses some of the key issues addressed by this special issue – institutionalization of administrative arrangements in support of the ESDP, the role of non-elected officials in the EU’s external relations and, indeed, evolving mechanisms for ensuring political control of the EU’s external action. In the first section, the paper discusses the notion of democratic accountability and reviews the state of the debate regarding democratic accountability in the EEAS. Three models of a democratic order in the EU are then suggested (cf Eriksen and Fossum) and based on those, three scenarios of developing democratic accountability in the EEAS are elaborated upon - the EEAS as a support agency for member state diplomacy; the EEAS as a federal foreign service of the EU; and the EEAS as a cosmopolitan normative entrepreneur.
Decision-making Void of Democratic Qualities? An Evaluation of the EU’s Second Pillar Decision-making Procedure
Anne Elizabeth Stie
European Integration Online Papers , 2010,
Abstract: The EU’s foreign and security policy is often criticised for being undemocratic. In this article, this contention is addressed from the perspective of deliberative democracy. The focus is on the procedural qualities of the second pillar decision-making processes as it is not only the quality of the outcomes that determine the democratic legitimacy of policy-making, but also the way that decisions have come about. Against five criteria, the EU’s second pillar procedure is assessed for its putative lack of democratic qualities. The analysis shows that not only does the second pillar lack parliamentary input, but the procedural set-up also violates basic democratic principles. There is no democratic deliberative forum to which citizens have access and where decision-makers must justify their positions. There is a serious absence of democratically elected participants to counter the vast number of bureaucrats, and the level of secrecy through which decisions are made is almost absolute. Furthermore, there is no separation of powers due to the fact that the same working groups prepare the second pillar items for both the Council and European Council, allowing the two bodies to lead an almost symbiotic coexistence. This impermeable unity controls agenda-setting, policy-formulation and execution, and hence also escapes both parliamentary and judicial scrutiny.
The European Union as a Security Actor: Moving Beyond the Second Pillar
Kamil Zwolski
Journal of Contemporary European Research , 2009,
Abstract: It is suggested in this article that there is a discrepancy between, on the one hand, literature that focuses on the European Union (EU) as a security actor and, on the other, contemporary security studies literature. This difference concerns the fact that the literature on the EU as a security actor treats security in a narrower sense than how it is approached in the literature on security studies. Over the past few decades, security studies literature has begun to fully acknowledge that the concept of security has broadened beyond traditional ‘hard’ security concerns and can encompass many different issues, for example the security implications of climate change. However, the literature on the EU as a security actor very often associates security only with the second pillar of the EU’s organisational structure; in particular the intergovernmental cooperation embodied by the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The main purpose of this article is to utilise the broader security studies approach to security as a means to expand the understanding of security in the context of the EU’s performance on the international stage. This is important because it allows the Union’s ‘actorness’ in the field of security to be examined in a more holistic manner.
Early Institutionalisation of the ESDP Governance Arrangements: Insights From Operations Concordia and Artemis
Petar Petrov
European Integration Online Papers , 2010,
Abstract: Immediately after the formal introduction of the ESDP by the Nice European Council in 2000, the new policy was equipped with a starting set of governance structures and procedures for crisis management operations. In 2003, these new arrangements were tested for the first time in the context of military operations, which opened the door for relevant adjustments and adaptations. This article compares and contrasts the relevant institutional developments in the context of the first two EU-led military operations - EUFOR Concordia and EUFOR Artemis - and aims at shedding light on the early processes of the institutionalisation of crisis management governance arrangements. In particular it looks at the role of experiential learning in prompting three complementary processes of institutionalisation: the formalisation and stabilisation of procedures; the importance of inter- and intra- institutional coordination; and the ability of individual actors to influence institutional development.
Parliaments and European security policy. Mapping the Parliamentary Field
Nicole Deitelhoff
European Integration Online Papers , 2010,
Abstract: The more important governmental cooperation and bureaucratic involvement become in ESDP, the more pressing becomes the issue of democratic control of executive cooperation. This article starts from the argument that parliamentary involvement in decision-making is of central importance for ensuring the democratic quality of ESDP. It uses the notion of a multilevel parliamentary field to examine how parliaments at different levels are currently involved in ESDP. It turns out that during the past two decades or so no clear-cut privileged channel of parliamentary involvement has evolved in this field. Although national parliaments are of central importance due to the intergovernmental nature of decision-making, even they face severe problems in controlling executive decisions as their powers vary widely and both international cooperation among executive actors and military integration pose severe problems to control procedures at the national level. The European Parliament and various forms of inter-parliamentary cooperation complement the work of member state parliaments. While they provide opportunities for public scrutiny of European security policies and for information sharing, working relations among parliaments in the field are not without frictions. The more executive decision-making departs from the purely intergovernmental model, the more problematic the existing arrangements for parliamentary involvement will become. There will be no easy remedy as adjustments in parliamentary control will require careful attention to the relations of the different elements in the parliamentary field.
The CSDP Mission Planning Process of the European Union: Innovations and Shortfalls
Alexander Mattelaer
European Integration Online Papers , 2010,
Abstract: This paper analyses and evaluates the CSDP mission planning process, i.e. the procedural model for planning, launching and reviewing CSDP operations. It shows that the EU has developed an intricate planning mechanism by generously drawing upon existing NATO planning doctrine while adding a distinct European touch. These innovations amount to expanding military planning models to civilian operations, tightening political oversight and fostering close links and cooperative mechanisms with the UN peacekeeping system. As such, the innovations mostly pertain to the political aspects of mission planning. However, some problems persist at the strategic and operational levels of mission planning, such as institutional arrangements for planning and commanding operations, procedures pertaining to force generation and inter-pillar coordination, and operational planning doctrine. Lessons learned from recent operational experiences indicate that the mental gap between the political and operational level is in need of remediation. This can be done either by keeping political expectations realistic or by investing more political will and effort in understanding and resolving operational difficulties.
Secretariat, Facilitator or Policy Entrepreneur? Role Perceptions of Officials of the Council Secretariat
Ana E. Juncos,Karolina Pomorska
European Integration Online Papers , 2010,
Abstract: The Council Secretariat General has emerged as one of the institutional winners of the dynamic development of the EU’s foreign and security policy, especially in the field of crisis management. Despite this, the role of the Council Secretariat in European foreign policy remains under researched. Based on extensive qualitative and quantitative data, the article provides new insights into the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) by examining the role(s) of the Council Secretariat and its officials from the perspective of the latter. Firstly, it discusses the theoretical framework drawing on the insights of role theory. Secondly, it provides a historical account of how the Secretariat has developed into the kind of actor it is today – especially in foreign and security policies – and also presents rich empirical evidence about EU diplomats (e.g. nationality, professional background, etc.). Third, it explores in detail the officials’ views on the roles they themselves play and the roles of the Secretariat as an institution involved in the making of European foreign policy. In this regard, the article reveals interesting differences amongst the constitutive parts of the Secretariat as to how they perceive both their individual and institutional roles. It also uncovers potential conflicts in perceptions between old and new institutional roles.
Bogdana Petric?
Romanian Journal of European Affairs (RJEA) , 2009,
Abstract: The differentiation has always accompanied the process of integration and it became more evident with the succession of enlargements. This concept originated in the practice of a tighter co-operation between some Member States in certain areas, or in the exceptional derogations given to other Member States which refused participation. Not only these exceptions may become the rule in an enlarged Union, but they appear as being the only solution, sometimes sensitive, and thus spring the need to be well organized. Beginning with the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice the differentiation is legally enshrined, but it is the works of the Convention for the Drafting of the Constitutional Treaty that advanced the debate on this subject. Finally, the Lisbon Treaty kept most of the provisions of the Constitutional Treaty regarding this subject and for its ratification; it is precisely the concept of differentiation that we shall employ. The Irish “No” demonstrated once more the inevitable obstructions of the unanimity rule, and differentiation might be a solution, while still respecting the diversity of Member States.
Page 1 /37
Display every page Item

Copyright © 2008-2017 Open Access Library. All rights reserved.