Abstract
The context in which the EU aspires to play its role as a security provider to its citizens and in its general vicinity has changed dramatically in the last several years. External and internal factors have established a particularly challenging environment in which EU governments had to move from the lethargic prosperity of the early 2000s to the demanding policy agenda of Defense (and Security) Union, as advocated by the European Commission. The last decade has brought major changes in the way in which the EU has responded to the evolving character of its security challenges. The EU and its governments could not avoid moving towards fashioning a comprehensive response to these challenges that were apparently connecting external and internal aspects of security.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A number of EU member states are not members of NATO such as Sweden, Ireland, Austria, Malta, Finland and Cyprus. With the exception of Cyprus, all these countries are members of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme of the Alliance according to which they have formulated a co-operational relationship with NATO.
References
Barcikowska, A. (2013). Securing the future of European defense. Issue Alert, EU Institute for Security Studies, 25:1–12 [online]. Accessed December 18, 2019, from https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/Alert_Defence.pdf.
Bellou, F. (2016). Calibrating fortress Europe at the time of austerity? In A. Bitzenis & P. Kontakos (Eds.), International conference on international business-proceedings. Thessaloniki 22–24 May 2015 & 20–22 May 2016 (pp. 7–20). Thessaloniki: University of Macedonia Press.
Bendavid, N. (2015, 22 June). Just five of 28 NATO members meet defense spending goal, report says. The Wall Street Journal [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193.
Bendiek, A. (2017). A paradigm shift in the EU’s common foreign and security policy: From transformation to resilience [online]. SWP research paper PR11, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Berlin, pp. 1–29. Accessed November 20, 2019, from https://www.swpberlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2017RP11_bdk.pdf.
Béraud-Sudreau, L., & Giegerich, B. (2018). NATO defense spending and European threat perceptions. Survival, 60(4), 53–74.
Biscop, S. (2013). Peace without money, war without the Americans: Challenges for European security. International Affairs, 89(5), 1125–1142.
Chalmers, M. (2017). UK foreign and security policy after Brexit [online]. London: RUSI briefing paper, Royal United Services Institute. Accessed November 20, 2019, from https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201701_bp_uk_foreign_and_security_policy_after_brexit_v4.pdf.
Clinton, H. (2011, 11 October). America’s pacific century. Foreign Policy [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_century.
Coelmont, J., & De Langlois, M. (2013). Recalibrating CSDP-NATO relations: The real pivot [online], Brussels, security policy brief 47, Egmont Royal Institute for international relations. Accessed November 20, 2019, from http://aei.pitt.edu/43290/1/SPB47.pdf.
Council of the European Union. (2003). European security strategy – a secure Europe in a better world [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15895-2003-INIT/en/pdf.
Council of the European Union. (2008, 11 December). Report on the implementation of the European security strategy: Providing security in a changing world [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/repors/104630.pdf.
Council of the European Union. (2014). Council conclusions on the EU’s comprehensive approach, Brussels.
Council of the European Union. (2016). Joint EU-NATO declaration, Warsaw [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21481/nato-eu-declaration-8-july-en-final.pdf.
Council of the European Union (2018). Joint Declaration of EU NATO Co-operation, Press Release [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/36096 /nato eu_final_eng.pdf.
De France, O. (2015). Defence budgets in Europe: Downturn or U-Turn? European Union Institute for Security Studies Issue Brief 12 [online]. Accessed November 19, 2019, from https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/Brief_12_Defence_spending_in_Europe.pdf.
De Hoop Scheffer, A., & Quencez, M. (2018). The U.S.–France special relationship after a year of Trump. Washington DC: Policy brief German Marshall Fund of the United States [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from http://www.gmfus.org/publications/us-france-special-relationship-after-year-trump.
Denison, B. (2019, 12 February). Confusion in the pivot: The muddled shift from peripheral war to great power competition. War on the Rocks [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from https://warontherocks.com/2019/02/confusion-in-the-pivot-the-muddled-shift-from-peripheral-war-to-great-power-competition/.
Donilon, T. (2013). National security advisor to the president: The United States and the Asia-Pacific in 2013 [online]. Washington DC: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. Accessed November 20, 2019, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/11/remarks-tom-donilon-national-security-advisory-president-united-states-a.
Dyson, T. (2010). Neoclassical realism and defense reform in post-cold war Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dyson, T. (2013). Balancing threat, not capabilities: European defense cooperation as reformed Bandwagoning. Contemporary Security Policy, 34(2), 387–391.
European Commission. (2013a). Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: Towards a more comprehensive and efficient defense and security sector. COM (2013) 542 final, 24 July, pp. 1–17.
European Commission. (2013b). Joint communication to the European parliament and the council: The EU’s comprehensive approach to external conflict and crises. JOINT (2013) 30 final, Brussels.
European Commission. (2016). Joint communication to the European parliament and the council. Joint framework on countering hybrid threats a European Union response. JOIN (2016) 18 final.
European Council. (2013). EUCO 217/13, CO EUR CONCL 8.
European Defense Agency. (2013). EDAs pooling and sharing, fact sheet [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from https://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/default-source/eda-factsheets/final-p-s_30012013factsheet_cs5_gris.
European Parliament. (2015, 3 March). Report on the annual report from the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy to the European parliament (2014/22199 (INI). Committee on Foreign Affairs, p. 3.
Fiott, D. (2018). Strategic autonomy: Towards ‘European sovereignty’ in defense? European Union Institute for security studies issue brief 12 [online]. Accessed February 13, 2019, from https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/Brief%2012__Strategic%20Autonomy.pdf.
Heisbourg, F. (2015). Preserving post-cold war Europe. Survival, 57(1), 31–48.
Heisbourg, F. (2016). Brexit and European security. Survival, 58(3), 13–22.
Heisbourg, F. (2018). Europe’s defense: Revisiting the impact of Brexit. Survival, 60(6), 17–26.
Holt, B. D. (2013). Strategic choices: Why Europe still matters. American Foreign Policy Interests, 35(3), 160–168.
Kamp, K. (2013, 27 March). NATO needs to follow the U.S. pivot to Asia. Judy Dempsey’s Strategic Europe, Carnegie Europe [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=51314.
Kashmeri, S., & Howorth, J. (2013, 13 June). Let Europe defend itself. US News [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/06/18/syrian-crisis-highlights-need-to-merge-nato-with-the-eu.
Krastev, I. (2014). Russian revisionism. Putin’s plan for overturning the European order. Foreign Affairs [online]. Accessed November 19, 2019, from https://www.saintjoehigh.com/ourpages/auto/2014/3/4/62271187/14-0303%20Russian%20Revisionism.pdf.
Leonard, M., & Bildt, C. (2019). From plaything to player: How Europe can stand up for itself in the next five years. Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Sofia, Warsaw: Policy Brief European Council on Foreign Relations [online]. Accessed September 15, 2019, from https://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/From_plaything_to_player_ECFR.pdf.
Martill, B., & Sus, M. (2018). Post-brexit EU/UK security cooperation: NATO, CSDP+, or ‘French connection’? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20(4), 846–863.
Monar, J. (2015). The EU as an international counter-terrorism actor. Progress and constraints. Intelligence and National Security, 30(2–3), 333–356.
NATO. (2012, 20 May). Chicago summit declaration [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_87593.htm?selectedLocale=en.
NATO. (2018). NATO secretary general annual report 2018 [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/20190315_sgar2018-en.pdf.
Nielsen, K. (2013). EU Soft Power and the Capability-Expectations Gap. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(5), 723–739.
Rachman, G. (2012, 2 April). The U.S. pivot to Asia- should Europeans worry? Center for European Policy Analysis [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from http://www.cepa.org/content/us-pivot-asia-%E2%80%93-should-europeans-worry.
Rickman, D. (2014, 11 December). This is the extent of defense cuts made by NATO members. The Independent [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/this-is-the-extent-of-defence-cuts-made-by-nato-members%2D%2De1voxWzzFl.
Rucker, P., & Costa, R. (2016, 21 March). Trump questions need for NATO, outlines noninterventionist foreign policy. Washington Post [online]. Accessed November 19, 2019, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/.
Stahl, B., Boekle, H., Nadoll, J., & Johannesdottir, A. (2004). Understanding the Atlanticist divide in the CSDP: Comparing Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands. European Foreign Affairs, 9(3), 417–441.
Tardy, T. (2014, March). CSDP: Getting third states on board. EUISS Issue Brief [online]. Accessed November 20, 2019, from https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/csdp-getting-third-states-board.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
Cite this chapter
Bellou, F. (2021). The Strategic Context of the European Security and Defence Policy. 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_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48893-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48892-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-48893-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)