Between conflict management and role conflict: the EU in the Libyan crisis

Abstract

This paper assesses the role of the European Union in the Libyan crisis (2011) and critically considers the implications for its evolution as an international security actor. Employing role theory, the paper reviews the historical development of the Union's security actorness and sheds specific light on the balance between self-conception and external expectations in the case of the Libyan crisis. Its central argument is that, despite external expectations and European narratives of a ‘comprehensive power role’, the Libyan crisis showed that the Union still acts in line with its traditional role as a civilian power. The inability to go beyond civilian power stemmed from internal dissonance on a potential hard power role and a corresponding lack of material capabilities. The growing gap between expectations about comprehensive actorness on the one hand and performance on the other is likely to damage the Union's future credibility as an international security actor.

Keywords:

• role theory
• Libya
• European foreign policy
• EU actorness
• comprehensive security

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Sophie Vanhoonacker, Geoffrey Edwards, Juliet Kaarbo, John Peterson, Vanessa Boas, Niklas Helwig, Rosalind Cavaghan and to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Notes on contributor

Nicole is an early career researcher and PhD candidate in the Marie Curie Initial Training Network on EU external action (EXACT). She held various academic and think tank positions before joining the Politics and International Relations Department of the University of Edinburgh in 2012.

Notes

1. Political speech acts were collected through keyword searches on official online databases. They were thematically analysed using the qualitative data analysis software NVivo.

2. Interviews were conducted in Brussels, Rome, Paris, Berlin and London between March 2009 and June 2013. Quotes were translated by the author. In-text references are in line with interviewee preferences and distinguished interview date.

3. See Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP.

4. See Council Decision 2011/210/CFSP.