Browse by title
Edited by Hans-Joachim Giessmann, Roger Mac Ginty, Beatrix Austin and Christine Seifert
Joseph S. Szyliowicz and Luca Zamparini
Hans J. Giessmann and Roger Mac Ginty
The chapter examines the new legal elements in the European Union (EU) Lisbon Treaty in the field of foreign and security policy, as well as the (not fully so new) overarching legal and institutional structures for policy creation. Three legal innovations made their appearance with the Lisbon Treaty. First, the position of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy was established, and the European External Action Service (EEAS) was formed – the task of which is to assist the High Representative. Second, the EU was empowered to impose sanctions not just against other countries (as earlier), but against individuals and non-state entities as well. Third, a mutual defence clause among the Union’s Member States was introduced. In other respects, where foreign affairs and security policy are concerned, the Lisbon Treaty did little but rearrange already existing provisions. The field remains fundamentally intergovernmental, but should the EU Member States agree on a legally deeper and thus more common policy there are few limits to how far the cooperation may reach. Most importantly, Member States should continue talking for the sake of European and international peace.
The European Union (EU) is often seen as a guarantor of peace and stability in Europe, but in the light of ‘Brexit’, shifts in transatlantic relations, the migration crisis and, growing political tensions between Member States, new questions need to be asked about what these crises and challenges entail for the Union. This chapter discusses these questions on the basis of research on security communities in international relations. The chapter describes the historical evolution of the security community concept and summarizes the main theoretical insights gained from studies conducted over several decades. The concept is used to analyse the development of the EU as a security-community-building institution, with an emphasis on military and civilian crisis management. The EU’s response to the refugee situation in the Mediterranean region is also analysed. The chapter concludes with a reflection on the extent to which the EU can act as a security-building institution beyond its borders, and this provides the basis for a set of policy recommendations highlighting that the EU should seek to strengthen practical cooperation with non-members in the field of international crisis management.
Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt, Anna Michalski, Niklas Nilsson and Lars Oxelheim
The introductory chapter outlines the challenge presented to the European Union (EU) by an increasingly complex security environment, compounded by a diverse set of crises relating to migration, terrorism, war in the EU’s immediate vicinity, and the lingering danger of disintegration in the Eurozone. In order to put the book in context, the chapter explores the current crises and the challenge they pose to solidarity in the EU and, ultimately, to its internal cohesion. It also reviews what the EU can and should do to remain relevant as a crisis manager and sustain its credibility as a peace project. The chapter subsequently outlines nine central aspects of the crises facing the EU and policy recommendations to address them. In conclusion, the chapter argues that the EU needs to strengthen solidarity among its Member States by reforming the European asylum policy and to deepen cooperation between judicial and national security agencies. Most importantly, however, the EU needs to prioritize upholding the four freedoms that underpin it in order to remain legitimate in the eyes of its citizens.
Sten Widmalm, Thomas Persson and Charles Parker
In recent years the European Union (EU) has explicitly embraced the goal of protecting all its citizens. The expression of this goal can be found in the solidarity clause of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which establishes a legal obligation that the EU and its Member States should assist each other when one of them is the object of a terrorist attack or a natural or human-made disaster. As a result of this aspiration, the EU has increasingly assumed a central role as a crisis manager. In this chapter we present the capacities that the EU has developed to deliver on these commitments and analyse the obstacles that impede these efforts. We also examine, with the help of survey data from the European Commission’s Eurobarometer, the expectations of citizens of EU Member States of the EU’s crisis management capacity. Finally, drawing on interviews with top officials from eighteen European civil protection services, we outline the challenges facing Europe’s crisis management capacity in light of the differences in trust and common norms among the EU’s crisis management authorities and the many different administrative cultures represented in these agencies. The chapter concludes with some reflections on the wider implications that should be taken into consideration as the EU works on further developing its crisis management capabilities.
This chapter argues that US pressure, as well as contemporary threats and problems, compel Europe to take more responsibility in the sphere of security. Yet, is Europe willing to do so and what does responsibility taking encompass? The chapter examines public opinion in the European Union (EU) Member States, the views of significant Member States, and brings the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into the analysis. The chapter indicates that threat perceptions are shared to a reasonable degree in Europe, and that the political will exists to handle threats and instabilities in both southern and eastern neighbourhoods and in the Middle East. Yet, most EU states have not yet reached NATO’s goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on defence and in this sense, Europe does not assume enough responsibility. The chapter suggests that European politicians highlight to their electorates that responsibility taking can provide status in international affairs, and that national interests might be served by providing for the collective European interest. Also, it suggests that responsibility should be distributed effectively, including between the EU and NATO, and that leaders take responsibility for security in both short- and long-term- perspectives.
Joakim Gullstrand and Christian Jörgensen
Food security has been increasing in the modern era and today is relatively high for most European households. Still, the prospect of high food security in the future may be challenged by rapid rise in global demand, driven by growth in both population and household income, while future supply could be constrained by climate change and scarcity of key inputs such as water, energy, and soil quality. These challenges are likely to have an asymmetrical influence on food security in countries and hence may lead to regional and global tensions. Therefore, the future food security of Europe is interlinked with global food security and other types of security, as it may, for example, trigger conflicts and acts of terrorism. The solution to handle potential food insecurity in the future is not to fall back on an isolationistic policy but instead to strengthen the long-term efficiency of the food system through policies fostering international trade and by a changed European attitude towards biotechnology to break the deadlock on both research and production focusing on genetically modified feed and food. In the short run, the policies and regulations already in place for upholding food security should be strengthened by facilitating European transfers to households troubled by price spikes and by increasing low, or absent, emergency reserves to handle unexpected and sudden disruptions.