Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Small EU Member States and the European Security and Defence Integration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Union Security and Defence

Part of the book series: Contributions to Political Science ((CPS))

Abstract

One of the most researched topics regarding small states in the EU concerns small member states and the Union’s security and defence policy. This should not come as a surprise as in these areas the interests and amount of power of small member states can diverge considerably from those of bigger EU member states, as well as their strategies do. Given the unprecedented progress that has been achieved by the Juncker Commission in the areas of security and defence integration, the goal of this chapter is to identify the new challenges and opportunities with which small EU member states have to deal. To this aim, it takes stock of previous research on small EU member states in ESDP/CSDP and also explores primary resources. The first part of the chapter discusses the developments concerning security and defence integration in the EU. The second part analyses the main debates in the literature on small EU member states in ESDP/CSDP. The third part builds upon the previous two in order to present the new challenges and opportunities that small member states confront in these areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Archer, C. (2010). Small states and the European security and defence policy. In R. Steinmetz & A. Wivel (Eds.), Small states in Europe: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 47–62). Abingdon: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, C., & Nugent, N. (2006). Introduction: Does the size of member states matter in the European Union? Journal of European Integration, 28(1), 3–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arter, D. (2000). Small state influence within the EU: The case of Finland’s ‘northern dimension initiative’. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 677–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayrault, J., & Steinmeier, F. (2016). A strong Europe in a world of uncertainty [Online]. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/DokumentUE-2.pdf.

  • Bailes, A. J., & Thorhallsson, B. (2013). Instrumentalizing the European Union in small state strategies. Journal of European Integration, 35(2), 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassot, E., & Hiller, W. (2019). The Juncker commission ten priorities: An end of term assessment. European Parliament, PE 637943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björkdahl, A. (2008). Norm advocacy: A small state strategy to influence the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(1), 135–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borg, S., & Herolf, G. (2005). CFSP Watch 2005-Sweden, CFSP Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breitegger, A. (2005). CFSP Watch 2005-Austria, CFSP Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunse, S. (2009). Small states and EU governance: Leadership through the council presidency. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Calleya, S. (2005). The south. In H. Mouritzen & A. Wivel (Eds.), The geopolitics of Euro-atlantic integration (pp. 111–127). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campell, Y., & Tonra, B. (2005). CFSP Watch 2005-Ireland, CFPS Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, P., & Edwards, G. (2005). The strategic culture of the European Union: A progress report. International Affairs, 81(4), 801–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, B. (2003). A common European foreign policy after Iraq? International Affairs, 70(3), 533–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deighton, A. (2002). The European security and defense policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(4), 719–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, K. (1957). Political community at the international level: Problems of definition and measurement. London: Archon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dikov, I. (2019, 16 May). Denmark’s leader favors referendum on joining EU security and defense policy. European [Views] [Online]. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://www.european-views.com/2019/05/denmarks-leader-favors-referendum-on-joining-eu-security-and-defense-policy/.

  • Duke, S. W. (2001). Small states and European security. In E. Reiter & H. Gärtner (Eds.), Small states and alliances (pp. 39–50). Heidelberg: Physica.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Efstathiou, Y. (2018). PESCO-the Greek perspective. IISS-ARES, Policy Paper #34. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Ares-34.pdf.

  • Efstathiou, Y. (2019). PESCO, the Cyprus perspective. IISS-ARES, Policy Paper #35. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Ares-35.pdf.

  • Emmot, R. (2019, 14 May). ‘Poison pills’: Pentagon tells EU not to block U.S. companies from defense pact. Reuters [Online]. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-eu-defence/poison-pills-pentagon-tells-eu-not-to-block-u-s-companies-from-defense-pact-idUSKCN1SK1V9.

  • European Council-Council of the European Union. (2019). Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)’s projects – Overview [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/39348/table-pesco-projects.pdf.

  • European External Action Service. (2017). From shared vision to common action: Implementing the EU global strategy year 1, a global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy [Online]. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/en/implementing-eu-global-strategy-year-1.

  • European External Action Service. (2018). Implementing the EU global strategy year 2 [Online]. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eugs_annual_report_year_2.pdf.

  • European External Action Service. (2019). The European Union’s global strategy three years on, looking forward [Online]. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_global_strategy_2019.pdf.

  • Everts, S. (2001, 3 December). Time to abolish the EU’s rotating presidency. CER Bulletin, no. 21 [Online]. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/bulletin-article/2001/time-abolish-eus-rotating-presidency.

  • Everts, S., & Missiroli, A. (2004, 10 March). Beyond the ‘Big three: To claim a global role, the EU needs its own security council’. The New York Times [Online]. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/opinion/IHT-beyond-the-big-three-to-claim-a-global-role-the-eu-needs-its-own.html.

  • Fawn, R. (2005). The east. In H. Mouritzen & A. Wivel (Eds.), The geopolitics of Euro-atlantic integration (pp. 128–148). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira-Pereira, L. C. (2007). Between Scylla and Charybdis: Assessing Portugal’s approach to the common foreign and security policy. Journal of European Integration, 29(2), 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiott, D. (Ed.). (2015). The common security and defense policy: National perspectives, Egmont paper (Vol. 79). Gent: Academia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiott, D. (2018). Strategic autonomy: Towards “European sovereignty” in defense? Brief Issue EUISS, no. 12. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/strategic-autonomy-towards-‘european-sovereignty’-defence.

  • Fiott, D. (2019). The poison pill: EU defence on US terms? EUISS, no. 7. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/poison-pill-eu-defence-us-terms.

  • Galbreath, D. J. (2006). Latvian foreign policy after enlargement: Continuity and change. Cooperation and Conflict, 41(4), 443–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gegout, C. (2007). The EU and security in the democratic republic of Congo in 2006: Unfinished business. FORNET CFSP Forum, 5(1), 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giegerich, B. (2006). E3 leadership in security and defense policy. CFSP Forum, 4(6), 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetschel, L. (2000). Small states and the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the EU: A comparative analysis. NRP42 Final Report, no. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Græger, N. (2015). From “forces for good” to “forgives for status”? In B. de Carvalho & I. Neumann (Eds.), Small state status seeking: Norway’s quest for international standing (pp. 86–107). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, C., & Leonard, M. (2006, 3 July). How to strengthen EU foreign policy. CER Policy Brief [Online]. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://www.cer.eu/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2011/policybrief_cfsp_3july06-819.pdf.

  • Grøn, C. H., & Wivel, A. (2011). Maximizing influence in the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty: From small state policy to smart state strategy. Journal of European Integration, 33(5), 523–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gyurcsány, F. (2005, May 2). The speech of prime minister in the parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisbourg, F. (2004). The French-German duo and the search for a New European security model. The International Spectator, 39(3), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. (1998). Closing the capabilities-expectations gap. In J. Peterson & H. Sjursen (Eds.), A common foreign policy for Europe? (pp. 35–56). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. (2006). The European powers in the security council: Differing interests, differing arenas. In K. Laatikainen & K. Smith (Eds.), The European Union at the United Nations (pp. 49–69). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, M. (1976). Influence without Power: Small states in European politics. The World Today, 32(3), 116–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen, P. V. (2009). Small states, big influence: The overlooked nordic influence on the civilian ESDP. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(1), 81–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joenniemi, P. (1998). From small to smart: Reflections on the concept of small states. Irish Studies in International Affairs, 9, 61–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kajnc, S. (2005). CFSP Watch 2005-Slovenia, CFSP Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasekamp, A. (2005). CFSP Watch 2005-Estonia, CFSP Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keukeleire, S. (2001). Directorates in the CFSP/CESDP of the European Union: A Plea for ‘restricted crisis management groups’. European Foreign Affairs Review, 6(1), 75–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khol, R. (2004). CFSP Watch 2004-Czech Republic, CFSP Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee-Ohlsson, F. (2009). Sweden and development of the European security and defence policy: A bi-directional process of Europeanization. Cooperation and Conflict, 44(2), 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maes, I., & Verdun, A. (2005). Small states and the creation of emu: Belgium and the Netherlands, pace-setters and gate-keepers. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(2), 327–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mälksoo, M. (2016). From the ESS to the EU global strategy: External policy, internal purpose. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 374–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 234–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBean, K. (2005). Ireland. In E. Munro (Ed.), Challenges to neutral & non-aligned countries in Europe and beyond (pp. 25–31). Geneva: Geneva Centre for Security Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A. (2009). Empowering paradise? The ESDP at ten. International Affairs, 85(2), 227–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C. O. (2005). Convergence towards a European strategic culture? A constructivist framework for explaining changing norms. European Journal of International Relations, 11(4), 523–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, L. (2005). The north. In H. Mouritzen & A. Wivel (Eds.), The geopolitics of euro-atlantic integration (pp. 92–110). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molis, A. (2006). The role and interests of small states in developing European security and defense policy. Baltic Security and Defense Review, 8, 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European community: A liberal Intergovernmentalist approach. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), 473–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouritzen, H. (2006). The nordic-baltic area: Divisive geopolitics at work. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19(3), 495–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouritzen, H., & Wivel, A. (Eds.). (2005). The geopolitics of euro-atlantic integration. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasra, S. (2011). Governance in EU foreign policy: Exploring small state influence. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(2), 164–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasra, S., & Debaere, P. (2012). The European Union in the G20: What role for small states? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(1), 209–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, I. B., & Gstöhl, S. (2006). Introduction Lilliputians in Gulliver’s world? In C. Ingebritsen, I. B. Neumann, S. Gstöhl, & J. Beyer (Eds.), Small states in international relations (pp. 3–36). Seattle/Reykjavik: University of Washington and University of Iceland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nugent, N. (2016). Enlargements and their impact on EU governance and decision-making. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 12(1), 424–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutall, S. (2005). Coherence and consistency. In C. Hill & M. Smith (Eds.), International relations of the European Union (pp. 91–112). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ojanen, H. (2000). Participation and influence: Finland, Sweden and the post-Amsterdam development of the CFSP, ISS, Occasional Paper 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ojanen, H. (2006). Book review: The Nordic countries and the European security and defence policy. Cooperation and Conflict, 41, 474–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palosaari, T., & Raik, K. (2004). It’s talking part that counts: The new member states adapt to EU foreign and security policy. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs, FIIA Report 2004/10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastore, G. (2013). Small new member states in the EU foreign policy: Towards ‘small state smart strategy’? Baltic Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.15388/BJPS.2013.2.2818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedi, R. (2016). Theory of international relations: Small states in the international system. PhD thesis, Thessaloniki, University of Macedonia. Accessed September 1, 2019, from http://thesis.ekt.gr/thesisBookReader/id/38599#page/1/mode/2up.

  • Pedi, R. (2019). The (small) state of the union: Assessing the EU’s ability to implement its global strategy. New Perspectives, 27(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedi, R., & Sarri, K. (2019). From the ‘small but smart state’ to the ‘small and entrepreneurial state’: Introducing a framework for effective small state strategies within the EU and beyond. Baltic Journal of European Studies, 9(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pishchikova, K., & Piras, E. (2017). The European Union global strategy: What kind of foreign policy identity? The International Spectator, 52(3), 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posen, B. R. (2004). ESDP and the structure of world power. The International Spectator, 39(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riddervold, M., & Newsome, A. (2018). Transatlantic relations in times of uncertainty: Crises and EU-US relation. Journal of European Integration, 40(5), 505–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romsloe, B. O. (2004). EU’s external policy: Are the Lilliputians impotent or potent? The case of crisis management in the Amsterdam treaty. ARENA Working Paper, 23, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangiovanni, M. E. (2003). Why a common security and defence policy is bad for Europe. Survival, 45(4), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjursen, H. (2004). Changes to European security in a communicative perspective. Cooperation and Conflict, 39(2), 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. (2005). Still ‘civilian power EU’? European Foreign Policy Unit. Working paper no.1, pp. 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. (2016). Implementing the global strategy where it matters most: The EU’s credibility deficit and the European neighbourhood. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 446–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavridis, S. (2001). “Militarising” the EU: The concept of civilian power Europe revisited. The International Spectator, 36(4), 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinmetz, R., & Wivel, A. (Eds.). (2010). Small states in Europe: Challenges and opportunities. Abingdon: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorhallsson, B., & Kirby, P. (2012). Financial crises in Iceland and Ireland: Does European Union and Euro membership matter? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(5), 801–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorhallsson, B., & Wivel, A. (2006). Small states in the European Union: What do we know and what would we like to know? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19(4), 651–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tocci, N. (2016). The making of the EU global strategy. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 461–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tocci, N. (2019). Resilience and the role of the European Union in the world. Contemporary Security Policy, 41(2):176–194. Accessed September 1, 2019, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13523260.2019.1640342?journalCode=fcsp20.

  • Toje, A. (2005). The 2003 European Union security strategy: A critical appraisal. European Foreign Affairs Review, 10(1), 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toje, A. (2008). The consensus—expectations gap: Explaining Europe’s ineffective foreign policy. Security Dialogue, 39(1), 121–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toje, A. (2010). The European Union as a small power: After the cold war. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tonra, B. (2000). Denmark and Ireland. In I. Manners & R. Whitman (Eds.), The foreign policies of European Union member states (pp. 224–242). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valášek, T. (2005) New EU members in Europe’s security policy. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 18, 2, 217–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, W. (1999). Small European states and European policymaking: Strategies, roles, possibilities. In W. Wallace (Ed.), Between autonomy and influence: Small states and the European Union (pp. 11–26). Oslo: Arena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, R. G., Algieri, F., Bauer, T., Brummer, K., & Stark, H. (2006). The Big 3 and ESDP: France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Bertelsmann Stiftung: Gütersloh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wivel, A. (2005). The security challenge of small EU member states: Interests, identity and the development of the EU as a security actor. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(2), 339–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wivel, A. (2010). From small states to smart state: Devising a strategy for influence in the European Union. In R. Steinmetz & A. Wivel (Eds.), Small states in Europe: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 15–30). Abingdon: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wivel, A., & Thorhallsson, B. (2018). Brexit and small states in Europe: Hedging, hiding or seeking shelter? In P. Diamond, P. Nedergaard, & B. Rosamond (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the politics of brexit. Routledge international handbooks (pp. 266–277). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International and European Studies, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Revecca Pedi

Authors
  1. Revecca Pedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Revecca Pedi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International and European Studies, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece

    George Voskopoulos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pedi, R. (2021). Small EU Member States and the European Security and Defence Integration. In: Voskopoulos, G. (eds) European Union Security and Defence. Contributions to Political Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48893-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation