![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The growth of European Union (EU) competences in the field of external security in the last decade has produced a substantial increase in the number of EU institutions and bureaucratic actors engaged in the planning and management of these policies. Moreover, the expansion of competences in such a sovereign sensitive area comes up against the persistent intergovernmental nature of the security sector. This has resulted, on the one hand, in a complex institutional architecture with heavy demands in terms of coordination, and on the other hand, in a stark differentiation and stratification of the legal regimes with a potential to impact on policy outcomes. This state of uncertainty is particularly relevant when looking at relations with countries bordering the Union, as the long-standing web of interactions there has developed a more complex institutional environment. While most of the scholarly literature focuses on single institutional sectors or policies (Common Security and Defence Policy, European Neighbourhood Policy, or the external side of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice), this study seeks to address the issue with a comprehensive analysis of the institutional framework that has emerged in the last decade, more notably, since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The article provides, first, an overview of the EU’s institutional actors responsible for security policies in the regions bordering the EU, and second, an examination of the different mechanisms established to address the coordination issue. Finally, this study will argue that the traditional military dimension is but one, and certainly not the most developed, of the security instruments employed by the EU. At another level, it will be argued that the shift of focus from the military to other security tools has altered the institutional balance in the security sector, substantially adding to the relative influential weight of the Commission.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank all the participants, and especially the discussants for valuable comments and suggestions. A special thanks also to Jessica Northey for the language editing.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributor
Chiara Steindler is a Research Fellow at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (European University Institute), San Domenico di Fiesole. She works for the BORDERLANDS Project, funded by the European Research Council (ERC).
Notes
1. The document (European Council Citation2003) was followed by a revision in 2008 (European Council, Report on the implementation of the ESS. Providing Security in a Changing World. Brussels, 11 December 2008 S407/08) that has not, however, replaced the 2003 document.
2. This paragraph is also based on a set of interviews conducted between April and November 2013. The semi-structured interviews were conducted at the Commission, the EP, the External Action Service, and the NATO Headquarters in Brussels.
3. The already quoted Security Strategy of 2003.
4. With the Report on the Implementation of the ESS – Providing Security in a Changing World. Drafted by the EU High Representative Javier SOLANA and approved by the European Council, Brussels, 11 December 2008, S407/08.
5. In the text of Art. 24, 3rd TEU:
Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area. Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union’s interests or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. The Council and the High Representative shall ensure that these principles are complied with.
Art. 24 is also complemented by two Declarations (see later) that don’t leave any doubt about the will of the legislator to leave the matter of coherence to the will of the single national government.
6. In the EU’s southern neighbourhood: EUPOL COPPS/Palestinian Territories, a police training mission and EUBAM Rafah, a EU’s Border Assistance Mission on the Gaza-Egypt border. Both missions were launched in 2005, although the second was suspended in 2007. The third is EUBAM Libya a civilian mission aimed at border management capacity building, initiated in 2013.
7. With the member states that are also NATO members.
8. A NATO programme launched in 1994, which aims at strengthening regional security through political dialogue and military cooperation.
9. An article 5 counterterrorism NATO operation; launched after 11 September, consists mainly of naval operations.
10. The so-called “externalization of security policies”. See on this aspect Lavenex Sandra and Nicole Wichmann (Citation2009) and Patryk Pawlak (Citation2009).
11. More precisely, to Policies on border checks and immigration (Articles 77, 78, and 79 of the TFEU); judicial cooperation in civil matters (Article 81 of the TFEU); police cooperation (Articles 87 and 88 of the TFEU); judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Articles 82, 83, 84, and 85 of the TFEU).
12. At the time of writing, there are 13 Operational Agreements, with: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Monaco, Australia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Switzerland, Turkey, Colombia, Russian Federation, USA, Norway, and Island.
13. Signed with Serbia, Moldova, and Albania.
14. Before the Lisbon Treaty, DG RELEX, now merged with the EEAS, and DG Development.
15. See, for instance, Euromed Police an ENP programme now at its III programming period, aimed fostering cooperation on police issues (http://www.euromed-police3.eu/) and managed by CiviPol, a consulting and service company of the French Ministry of the Interior, that “leverages the professional expertise of the French police, gendarmerie, civil protection and territorial administration services” http://www.civipol.fr/en/editorial consulted on 10 April2014.
16. Eleven Member States and about 50 national authorities are part of the project. The work packages are led, respectively, by the Finnish Border Guard, the Swedish Coast Guard, the Italian Space Agency, the Armaments Procurement Agency (DGA)/French Ministry of Defence and the Portuguese Directorate General for Maritime Policy. See the Project website at http://coopp.eu/the-project, consulted on 2 April 2014.
17. See Häge (Citation2012) also on the consequent reduction of the working party system.
18. The chain of Council committees in this formation includes the EUMC, the European Union Military Staff, the Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management plus the sectorial Working Party on Terrorism – International Aspects (COTER) and other more specific working parties. In its JHA formation the Council is supported once again by a number of specialized committees, the most important of which are: the Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security, consisting of key figures of the national ministries, assisted by the Permanent Representatives of the member states and the Council Secretariat; the Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum and the JHA-RELEX Working Group (JAIEX; in the past, JHA-RELEX Ad Hoc Support Group).
19. Consider, for example, the debates on the storage and exchange of sensitive data in the monitoring of terrorist organizations.
20. It is no coincidence that Article. 2 of the Decision that establishes the EEAS refers to art. 21 TEU, according to which “The Union will ensure consistency between the different areas of its external action and between these areas and other policies”.
21. In 2010 Hungary, Belgium, and Poland presented non-paper presented by on civilian aspects of CSDP issues, which also touched on the need to strengthen cooperation between CSDP and the area of FSJ, followed by a non-paper presented by Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg on “Strengthening ties between CSDP and FSJ (Freedom, Security and Justice) actors”. Later, on November 2010, Italy presented a non-paper on “Cooperation between CSDP and FSJ” and, finally, also Finland circulated a non-paper on “Strengthening cooperation between the internal and external aspects of security; COSI and civilian crisis management” (European Commission-High Representative 2011, p. 3).
22. Par. 2 Actors and Policies of EU’s external security.
23. See, for instance, the 2010 programme “Support to the Libyan authorities to enhance the management of borders and migration flows” at http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/documents/aap/2010/af_aap-spe_2010_lby_p2.pdf consulted on 8 April 2014.
24. Interview, Brussels, 17 April 2013. But, for more examples, see Brattberg et al. Citation2010, 13.
25. Video recording of the session of the Committee on Civil Liberties, EP, 11 October 2012. The video is available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20121011-0900-COMMITTEE-LIBE
26. See note no. Footnote24, above.