Introduction: the role of the EU in external crisis management

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Acknowledgements

This volume is the outcome of an international workshop held in Oslo, Norway, 20–22 April 2002 in collaboration between the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) and the Peace Studies Department at the University of Bradford. The editors are grateful to all conference participants for constructive feedback on the early drafts of these articles. The international workshop was supported in part by the European Community's Human Potential Programme, which funded the Research Training Network entitled ESDP Democracy: bridging the accountability gap in EU Security and Defence Policy (HPRN-CT-2000-00070). Additionally, we wish to express our gratitude to the Norwegian Ministry of Defence for financial support towards the workshop.

Particular thanks are due to Owen Greene and Tom Woodhouse for providing the initial intellectual framework for discussion at Bradford. Furthermore we wish to express our gratitude to the editor of International Peacekeeping, Mike Pugh, who has given us invaluable editorial support. Through her management, Patricia Chilton, the Project Leader of the RTN network on ESDP and democracy, has ensured that this special issue became a reality. We would like to thank Ulla Jasper, Adam Neudold, Clara Portela and Kristin Marie Haugevik for their research support; and Birgitte Kjos Fonn, Kristin Marie Haugevik, Susan Høivik and Eilert Struksnes for help with proof reading. Finally, thanks are also due to Mike Bourne for contributing to our exchange of ideas in Bradford. The articles were completed in early 2004.

Notes

The ESDP is an integral part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, that is, the Second Pillar of the EU. It was established at a number of WEU and EU Council Meetings in 1999 and 2000.

For the literature on the EU ‘actorness’ see Christopher Hill, ‘The Capability-expectations Gap, or Conceptualising Europe's International Role’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.31, No.3, 1993, pp.305–28; Charlotte Bretherton and John Vogler, The European Union as a Global Actor, London and New York: Routledge, 1999, p.29. The European Communities, Pillar One, has also an international legal personality, whereas the other Two Pillars (CFSP and Justice and Home Affairs) do not.

Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. For a critical review of the book see: ‘Michael Cox, Martians and Venutians in the New World Order’, International Affairs, Vol.79, No.3, 2003, pp.523–32.

This is a view that in the past was expressed in the notion of ‘civilian power’. Kevin Twitchett, Europe and the World, London: Europa, 1976.

Fritz Scharpft, Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Michael E. Smith, Europe's Foreign and Security Ambitions: The Institutionalisation of Cooperation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp.209–38.

The literature on the EU and crisis management is mainly descriptive or based on case studies. Simon Duke, The EU and Crisis Management: Developments and Prospects, Maastricht: European Institute for Public Administration, 2002. For a more theoretically inspired approach see: Roy H. Ginsberg, The European Union in International Politics: Baptism by Fire, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.

For an overview of the complexity of conceptualizing the EU and its external role see Ben Rosamond, Theories of European Integration, London: Palgrave, 2000; Michele Knodt and Sebatiaan Princen, ‘Introduction: Puzzles and Prospects in Theorizing the EU's External Relations’, in Michele Knodt and Sebatiaan Princen (eds.), Understanding the European Union's External Relations, London: Routledge, pp.1–16.

Hazel Smith, European Union Foreign Policy: What It Is and What It Does, London: Pluto, 2002.

Ben White, Understanding European Foreign Policy, London: Palgrave, 2001.

Michael Smith, The Framing of European Foreign and Security Policy: towards a Post-modern Policy Framework? Journal of European Public Policy 10, Vol.4, 2003, pp.556–75.

Ibid., pp.569–60.

This point was made in a draft chapter of a forthcoming book presented by Michael Smith at the European Consortium for Political Research Conference in Marburg, September 2003.

This analysis relies on an engagement with the conclusions drawn by Professor K.E. Jorgensen: K.E. Jorgensen (eds.), European Approaches to Crisis Management, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997 (see conclusion especially).

For an example of the ‘weak state’ version see Ira William Zartam (eds.), Collapsed States, Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, Boulder CO: 1995. For a populist version of the argument see Robert D. Kaplan, ‘The Coming Anarchy’, Atlantic Monthly, February 1994, www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/anarchy.htm; Robert Cooper, The Making and Breaking of Nations, London: Atlantic Books, 2003.

Mark Duffield, Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security, London: Zed, 2001; Michael E. Brown, ‘Internal Conflict: Causes and Implications’, in Michael E. Brown (eds.), The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.1–31.

Frank Furedi, The New Ideology of Imperialism, London: Pluto, 1994; P. Bilgin and A.D. Morton, ‘Historicizing representations of “failed states”: Beyond the Cold-War Annexation of the Social Sciences?’ Third World Quarterly, Vol.23, No.1, 2002, pp.55–80.

On the role of public philosophies and programmatic ideas see Margaret Weir, ‘Ideas and Politics of Bounded Innovation’, in Sven Steimo, Kathleen Thelen and Frank Longstreth (eds.), Structuring Politics, Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Ibid., p.207.

HMSO, Joint Warfare Publication 3-50: Peace Support Operations, London: HMSO, 1999.

John Mackinlay, ‘Peace Support Operations Doctrine’, British Army Review, 113, August 1996, pp.5–13; R. Thornton, The Role of Peace Support Operations: Doctrine in the British Army, International Peacekeeping, Vol.7, No.2, 2000, pp.41–62, P. Wilkinson, ‘Sharpening the Weapons of Peace: Peace Support Operations and Complex Emergencies’, International Peacekeeping, Vol.7, No.1, 2000, pp.63–79.

United Nations, Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations. A/55/305 – S/2000/809, August 2000 (accessed at www.un.org/peace/reports/peace_operations). For a history of the concept see Alex J. Bellamy, Paul Williams and Stuart Griffin (eds.), Understanding Peacekeeping. Cambridge: Polity, 2004. pp.169–73.

Bellamy, Ibid., pp.173–83.

On the issue of coherence, see: Smith (n.6 above).

There are some minor differences of opinion. The Commission views conflict prevention as relying on tools, such as development aid, trade policy instruments, humanitarian aid, social and environmental policies, diplomatic instruments and political dialogue that seek to address the underlying causes of conflict, that is, structural inequalities. In the academic literature this is known as ‘thick’ conflict prevention. In contrast the Council adopts a definition of conflict prevention that relies more exclusively on linking civilian elements with diplomatic and military means, reflecting the notion of ‘thin’ conflict prevention. For the distinction, see Bellamy (see n.23 above), pp.250–55.