The influence of EU officials in European Security and Defence

Abstract

European Union (EU) foreign policy has long been considered the domaine réservé of the member states. This article challenges such conventional state-centered wisdom by analyzing the influence of the Brussels-based EU officials in the Common Security and Defence Policy. Using four case studies and data from 105 semi-structured interviews, it shows that EU officials are most influential in the agenda-setting phase and more influential in civilian than in military operations. Their prominence in agenda-setting can be explained by their central position in the policy process. This allows them to get early involved in the operations. The absence of strong control mechanisms and doctrine in civilian crisis management gives them opportunities to affect civilian missions. Finally, EU officials direct civilian operations from Brussels, whereas the command of military operations is with the member states and NATO.

“Pool it or lose it?” – a contrastive analysis of discourses concerning EU military integration and demilitarisation in the Baltic Sea

“…As far as this topical context is concerned, this article contributes to the recent scholarly debate on EU military cooperation and the role of the European Defence Agency (EDA) from a discursive perspective analysing the justifications for such military cooperation. EU military cooperation has gained much scholarly attention, focusing on both the problems of conducting military cooperation in the EU and on the discursive means of European officials that promote more military cooperation (Dijkstra 2012;Koivula 2016;Matlary 2008;Müller 2016;NorheimMartinsen 2013;Rayroux 2013). In contrast to these studies that examine the influence of policies and discourses, this article focuses specifically on the types of argumentation and their relationship with each other, while also analysing potential justifications for these.…”

The logic underpinning EU crisis management operations

“…For example, interviewees evoked the EU border monitoring mission in Gaza as an instance where US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice approached and challenged the EU to provide a monitoring presence. EU-level institutions have similarly had an impact, especially with regard to setting the agenda for EU collective action in the CSDP framework (Dijkstra 2012). Yet such suggestions clearly remained dependent on EU governments' willingness to engage, especially if considerable resources were involved.…”

‘Talking the Talk or Walking the Walk’: Understanding the EU's Security Identity

“…It was French prompting at the Security Council that played a large part in passing UN Security Council Resolution 1778 under which the mission ultimately deployed (Mattelaer, , p. 14). The structure of the mission, which was placed under Irish Defence Forces General Pat Nash, was designed to minimize the perception of overt partiality and too much French influence (Dijkstra, ). Despite this, the perception remained complicated.…”