The European Union and Crisis Management: Will the Lisbon Treaty Make the EU More Effective?

Abstract

The European Union's security and defence policy (ESDP) was invented 10 years ago and has been operational for more than five years. During this period the EU has launched over 20 ESDP missions allowing the organization to be engaged in international crisis management in various ways. The coming years will reveal whether the European Union is able to meet its ambitions to carry out a greater number of more complex ESDP missions in higher-risk theatres. While the EU has stepped up the plate to meet these challenges, the three case studies discussed in this article (EULEX Kosovo, EUPOL Afghanistan, EUFOR Tchad/RCA) reveal that the path paved with good intentions might in this case indeed lead to hell. Whereas the new Treaty of Lisbon introduces quite a few institutional changes to the current treaty regime of foreign affairs and security policy, it is questionable whether these innovations will significantly improve the decision-making and leadership on issues of ESDP and, consequently, the effectiveness of the Union as an international crisis manager. [M]ore than 20 civilian and military operations, are or have been deployed on almost every continent, from Europe to Asia, from the Middle East to Africa. Thousands of European men and women are engaged in these operations, ranging from military to police, from border guards to monitors, from judges to prosecutors, a wide range of people doing good for the stability of the world. This is the European way of doing things: a comprehensive approach to crisis prevention and crisis management; a large and diversified tool box; a rapid response capability; playing our role as a global actor. Obviously, if the Lisbon Treaty were to be ratified, and I hope it will be, we would be even more effective.

The Development of the European Union’s Common Security and Defense Policy’s Security Dimension and Pesco’s Role: Opportunities and Challenges

“…Böylelikle BAB'ın savunma ile ilgili sonuçlar doğuracak tüm kararların verilmesindeki tek yetkili olduğu ile ilgili ibareler de geçerliliğini yitirmiştir ve AB, Petersberg görevlerinin tamamını kapsayacak şekilde faaliyet gösterecek duruma gelmiştir (Blockmans ve Wessel, 2009).…”

Untitled

“…The latter has raised a new question of `mandate` allocation` or who should be responsible for what, within the Community and CFSP pillars (Nuttall 2001). The need for the coherence in EU crisis management was further underlined by the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which in contrast to Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties introduced several institutional reforms to improve the coherence in EU crisis management (Blockmans and Wessel 2009). The position of the HR of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/ Vice President of the European Commission and European External Action Service (EEAS) was aimed to ensure coherence between between the different areas of EU external action (Lisbon Treaty, Article 21).…”

The Legal Dimension of European Foreign Policy

“…The global ambitions of the EU are not limited to foreign policy, but include a clear security and defence dimension. In particular since the 'breakthrough' in the Treaty of Nice in 2003, the development of a Common Security and Defence policy (CSDP) and its civilian and military missions have been given extensive attention in legal research (Blockmans and Wessel, 2009;Koutrakos, 2013;Naert, 2010;Wessel, 2003b).…”