EU Conflict Management in Africa: The Limits of an International Actor

Gegout, Catherine

doi:10.1080/17449050903086997

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the EU has been said to act differently towards Russia (Zimmermann, 2007), which it needs predominantly for reasons of energy security, if compared with the smaller central and eastern European states (Haukkala, 2008). EU 'humanitarian' interventions in Africa seem to depend on the geostrategic interests of EU Member States (Gegout, 2009). There is also the use of normative arguments to rationalize EU interests in trade with the Global South (e.g.…”

Section: Normative Power Europe and Its Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normative power as hegemony

Diez¹

2013

Cooperation and Conflict

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article identifies four key problems in the debate about normative power Europe that may be fruitfully tackled when linking it to the concept of hegemony: the debate about whether EU foreign and external policy is driven by norms or interests; the problem of inconsistent behaviour as a result of competing and contested norms; the question of the role of state and non-state actors in EU foreign and external policy; and the problematic standing of normative power as an academic engagement, in particular in regard to whether the theory is of primarily explanatory, descriptive or normative value. The author suggests that the concept of hegemony may address these problems. First, it combines norms and interests, thus transcending the divide that has resulted in endless debates about the EU's standing as a normative power. Second, hegemony does not start from a pre-given set of norms with fixed meanings, but rather puts the struggles about these norms at centre stage, thus seeing inconsistencies not as undermining but as part and parcel of normative power. Third, hegemony expands our understanding of the actors involved in the construction and exercise of normative power, thus bringing not only Member States but also social forces in a much broader sense into the picture. Finally, hegemony reorientates the debate about normative power so as to reinstate the critical purpose that the concept was supposed to have from the start.

show abstract

Section: Normative Power Europe and Its Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normative power as hegemony

Diez¹

2013

Cooperation and Conflict

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the time, national governments strongly hesitate before contributing to an operation. The force generation is usually troublesome, the case in point being EUFOR Chad-CAR, which required several intergovernmental meetings before being operational (Choplin and Lombard 2009, Gegout 2009, Dijkstra 2010. And financial contributions from the Member States are slow in coming.…”

Section: The Lack Of Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financing Common Security and Defence Policy operations: explaining change and inertia in a fragmented and flexible structure

Terpan

2014

European Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The financing of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operations questions the capacity of the European Union (EU) to contribute to crisis management. Instead of a single mechanism that would be used for all kinds of missions, different mechanisms are applied, depending on the objective and nature of the operation. The aim of this article is to explain change and inertia in the way these operations are funded. The first section is dedicated to the presentation of the legal framework and its characterization as a fragmented and flexible structure. It allows for identifying the changes that have affected the financing of EU operational activities abroad. The main problems and challenges in financing CSDP operations are dealt with in the second section. The third section explains: (1) why changes have occurred in some areas and (2) why inertia has prevailed in other areas in spite of the problems previously identified. Three main explanations are tested. Rules and practices in financing CSDP operations (1) result from operational needs, (2) are influenced by proactive supranational institutions and (3) are triggered by the Member States. These three explanations are not mutually exclusive. They all contribute to the understanding of CSDP operations, but the relative importance of each factor depends on the operations at hand. Generally, the second factor is at play in the case of civilian operations, while the third one prevails with regard to military operations. The first factor brings a complementary explanation to both kinds of operations.

show abstract

“…In addition, the national contributions of the three operations selected vary importantly, allowing for a study of whether the contribution of national troops influences parliamentary scrutiny practice. Rough estimates on national contributions are provided in Table 2 and are based on a variety of sources (European Scrutiny Committee, 2016; Gegout, 2009: 409; House of Commons, 2006a; Larcher, 2016; Major, 2008: 18; Statista, 2017). In cases where only a few individuals participated, they were typically liaison officers stationed in the Operational Headquarters (OHQ) outside of an operation’s theatre.…”

Section: Csdp Scrutiny Practice Amid Differing Parliamentary Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limiting or liberating? The influence of parliaments on military deployments in multinational settings

Schade

2018

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multilateral contexts often complicate parliaments’ efforts to scrutinise and influence security policy, as parliaments usually work in a national setting. This article explores how the internationalisation of security policy has altered parliamentary constraints on executive decision-making. It focuses on cases where multilateral decision-making is particularly advanced and studies military deployments under the auspices of the European Union’s (EU’s) Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Using the examples of France, the United Kingdom and Germany, the article examines how the policy’s location at the intersection of decision-making on security and EU matters creates new opportunities for member state parliaments to scrutinise it. Yet, as an analysis of three CSDP military operations shows, these opportunities do not always translate into increased scrutiny practice and vary in line with factors such as national troop contributions, distinct political traditions and an operation’s salience.

show abstract

EU Conflict Management in Africa: The Limits of an International Actor

Cited by 14 publications

References 8 publications

Normative power as hegemony

Normative power as hegemony

Financing Common Security and Defence Policy operations: explaining change and inertia in a fragmented and flexible structure

Limiting or liberating? The influence of parliaments on military deployments in multinational settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About