Beyond Intergovernmentalism: European Security and Defence Policy and the Governance Approach

Abstract

Over the last decade, the EU has developed into a regional institution whose military ambitions extend well beyond Europe. This development counteracts the assumptions of realist and intergovernmental theories, raising the question of what concepts "are" appropriate for understanding security and defence policy in the EU. It has been argued that governance approaches are particularly well-suited to describe the functioning of the EU. Yet analyses of the EU's common security and defence policy (CSDP) have to date not been granted the benefits of this insight. This article seeks to remedy this by venturing down the yet unfulfilled EU trail of a burgeoning literature on "security" governance. Exploring five features of security governance, the article identifies the most promising questions and approaches of the so-called governance turn in IR theory, ending up with a putative EU security governance research agenda that will lead to a deeper understanding of the kind of security actor that the EU has evolved into. Copyright (c) 2010 The Author(s). JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies (c) 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

How to Explain the Transnational Security Governance of the European Union?

“…The concept of ‘security governance’, as defined by Webber et al . () and adopted by Norheim‐Martinsen (), seems to fit particularly well to better our understanding of the system in which IOs develop such networks. This does not mean, however, that there are no tensions between various attributes of the governance system and some of the components of the IOs' authority.…”

“…The second stage incorporates the ‘security governance’ framework, as originally developed by Webber et al . () and further operationalized by Norheim‐Martinsen (), to introduce the key attributes of the CBRN CoE project.…”

“…Following the EU's own post‐Maastricht vocabulary, the second pillar, and particularly the CSDP framework, has occupied a central place in the scholarship on the EU's role in international security (Knodt and Princen, , p. 2). For example, Norheim‐Martinsen (), while aiming to contribute to the literature on the EU's security governance, focuses on only one aspect – that is, the CSDP. Although each effort to better our understanding of the EU's international security apparatus is to be valued, the EU's security governance is a term more encompassing than is often acknowledged in the literature.…”

“…It is impossible here to identify all the approaches to the ‘security governance’ concept. Instead, the article incorporates the model developed by a group of scholars (Webber et al ., ) and revisited by Norheim‐Martinsen (), who has identified the EU's security governance to: (a) consist of multiple centres of power, (b) include the interaction of multiple actors, (c) contain formal and informal institutionalization, (d) include ideational relations between actors and (e) involve collective purpose. All of these attributes desperately require the broadening of the scholarly focus to also include transnational instruments such as the IfS.…”

“…The first stage reflects on the value of the 'security governance' framework in studying the EU's international security policy. The second stage incorporates the 'security governance' framework, as originally developed by Webber et al (2004) and further operationalized by Norheim-Martinsen (2010), to introduce the key attributes of the CBRN CoE project.…”