A more capable EU? Assessing the role of the EU’s institutions in defence capability development

ABSTRACT

Are EU institutions able to perform their preferred role within defence capability development? Highlighting increased demands for a stronger EU role in security, we explore how EU institutions have promoted their role within CSDP. Using role theory, we investigate the European Commission, the EDA, the EEAS and the European Parliament’s ability to promote pooled and shared defence resources in European capability development. We argue that this depends on the combination of the alignment of their original role treaty/design-based mandate with the role they perceive having; the role expectations of the big three Member States (Germany, France, UK); and the changing international environment, which may alter both role perceptions and role expectations. We find that the Commission and the EEAS have managed on occasion to promote pooled and shared defence resources overcoming Member State objections, showing autonomy in creating increased defence capability independently of MS leading to more integration within CSDP.

KEYWORDS:

• CSDP
• EU institutions
• defence capability development
• role theory
• United Kingdom
• France
• Germany

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Whilst the UK voted to leave (23 June 2016), it remains in the analysis as this article seeks to understand the EU’s institutions’ influence in defence capability development over time.

2. Pooled and shared defence resources can be considered as a policy option, however, we treat this as a norm as it became the overarching principle for defence capability development within the EU (European Union 2007).

3. Implying that they provide for their security in-house.

4. Each country’s role is based both on interests and norms which underpin these. For example, a country’s Atlanticism or Europeanism arises from its interpretation of its history which informs the norms underpinning its role conceptions (Chappell 2012).

5. The impact of the UK’s departure from direct EU institutional structures is unclear at the time of writing.

6. The HR role encapsulates three elements: head of the EDA, head of the EEAS and Commission VP.