Search

This book accounts for transformations in the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)during fifteen years of operations (2001-2016), and argues that the EU evolved into a softer and more civilian security provider, rather than a military one. This learning process was driven by transnational communities of experts and practitioners, which acted as engines of change. Giovanni Faleg analyses two innovative concepts introduced in the EU security discourse since the late 1990s: security sector reform (SSR) and civilian crisis management (CCM). Both stem from a new understanding of security, involving the development of non-military approaches and a comprehensive approach to crisis management. However, the implementation of the two policy frameworks by the EU led to very different outcomes. The book explains this variation by exploring the pathways by which ideas turn into policies, and by comparing the transformational power of epistemic communities and communities of practice. “/p>

The true causes of the EU's inertia as a security actor in its neighbourhood and beyond are not a lack of capability or even austerity measures, but the absence of a core group of states committed to driving integration forward, argues Giovanni Faleg. Member states are reluctant to set clear common strategic priorities and struggle to agree on a revision of the institutional rules. Their strategic cultures and interests differ significantly; they hold different visions of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and are unwilling to use the CSDP instruments at their disposal.

The threat posed by the crisis in Mali is direct, multidimensional and without regard to geographical proximity or historical and colonial heritage, writes Giovanni Faleg. France's solitary intervention in Mali and the EU's absence there raise two important questions for the future of the EU's supposedly 'Common' Security and Defence Policy. The first has to do with the crisis itself; its nature and the threat posed by the terrorist groups and militias that are being countered by French armed forces. The second concerns the causes and implications of yet another example of the EU's inability to take responsibility for security matters in its neighbourhood and beyond.--Publisher description.

The European Union's new naval force deployment in the Mediterranean, EUNAVFOR MED, has drawn criticism from international partners and the general public alike because plans for any "boat sinking" operation raise fears about unacceptable levels of violence and collateral damage. In this CEPS Commentary Giovanni Faleg and Steven Blockmans argue that although the problems of EUNAVFOR MED lie less in clumsy public diplomacy than in the perilous mismatch between its stated objectives and the absence of a clear strategy and mandate, the naval force could nevertheless mark an important turning point in the EU's security narrative. EUNAVFOR MED means that the Union is finally addressing the threats to security and the humanitarian tragedies in its southern neighbourhood.--Publisher description

Hybrid threats in Africa have become a security concern for the EU. CSDP missions in the continent are increasingly the target of hybrid operations. Perpetrators of hybrid activities are state (e.g., Russia, China, Turkey) and non-state actors (e.g., Salafi-jihadist groups and private military contractors), operating in a growing list of African countries. Malign actors conduct hybrid operations to undermine the EU's capacity and credibility as a security provider, to hamper mission mandates and larger strategic interests, altering the relationship between the EU and African partners. Information manipulation is the most visible rising threat, alongside cyberattacks. Enhancing capacities to pre-empt and detect hybrid threats is vital to protect EU credibility and effective presence on the ground. There is a risk that some African countries may become operational hubs for growing hybrid activities, with a deteriorating impact on transnational security.

Given the Ukraine crisis, Russia’s resurgence and the burning crises in the South there has never been a better time to discuss European defence. From November 2014 to March 2015, the online magazine European Geostrategy published a number of excellent essays on the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), all from a national perspective. You can now read all of the essays in this one neat publication. Indeed, in this essay collection jointly published by European Geostrategy, the Egmont Institute and the Institute for European Studies, a host of leading experts give their national perspectives on the present state and future of the EU’s CSDP. Each of the thirty-four essays focuses on the continued relevance of the CSDP when compared to the security challenges facing Europe today. Some essays give a bleak picture of the future, whereas others see grounds for optimism. Either way the essays are bound to provoke reactions of all kinds.

The November 13th terrorist attacks in Paris have prompted the European Union to activate the mutual assistance clause contained in Art. 42.7 of the EU Treaty. Member states are now entering the unchartered territory of large-scale conflict: will they join a French-led coalition of the willing, or is the military intervention against Daesh being Europeanised? This Commentary explores implications of the Paris attacks on European security and recommends coordinated and comprehensive responses to be taken within the EU framework.--