Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The EU’s Foreign, Security and Defence Policy Fifteen Years after Maastricht: A Constitutional Momentum?

  • Chapter
Die Europäische Union im 21. Jahrhundert

Abstract

Fifteen years ago, on 7 February 1992, the Member States of the European Economic Community (EEC) entered a new phase in the ongoing process of intensifying their political cooperation. In signing the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) they officially embraced the foreign and security cooperation as an inextricable component of what they referred to as ‘the Union’. From the entry into force of the Treaty on 1 November 1993 the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was seen as one of the areas that served as the justification for the establishment of that Union.

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 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. This topic was extensively addressed in a dissertation by Jürgens, Th.: Die gemeinsame Europäische Auß en-und Sicherheitspolitik. Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1994, who himself also concluded: „Die vorstehenden Ausführungen bestätigen zunächst die überwiegend vertretene Ansicht, daß bei den Vereinbarungen der Politischen Zusammenarbeit mangels Rechtsbindungswillens keine rechtlichen Normen begründet worden sind“ (p. 169). Apart from the alleged absence of an intention to be legally bound, Jürgens pointed at the absence of a Treaty basis and the terminology of the constituting documents of the European Council and the Reports of the Foreign Ministers. The Communiqués and Declarations of the Heads of State or Government were „programmatisch und damit nichtrechtlich“ (emphasis added).

    Google Scholar 

  2. According to Jürgens (ibid., p. 33), this can be blamed on the fact that CFSP is to be seen as a form of cooperation that „eine Sonderstellung zwischen Recht und Politik einnimmt und dahin tendiert, sich Juristen und rechtlicher Analyse zu entziehen und diese nahezu auszuschließ en“. While it is indeed hardly possible to deny a certain indistinctiveness between law and politics in the area of CFSP at first sight, there is no a priori reason to regard the cooperation as occupying an exceptional position ‘between law and politics’. However, as in almost every other area of international cooperation, both elements influence the final outcome.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See for instance De Zwaan, I: ‘Community Dimensions of the Second Pillar’, in: Heukels, T./ Blokker, N./ Brus, M. (eds): The European Union after Amsterdam: A Legal Analysis. The Hague: Kluwer Law International 1998, pp. 179–193 at 187: “[...] the second pillar concerns only politics and not legislation [...]”. This view also seems to be widely held by political scientists. See for for instance Keukeleire, S.: Het buitenlands beleid van de Europese Unie. Deventer: Kluwer, 1998 at 193 and 194: “Decisions on Common Positions or Joint Actions are first and foremost political obligations”, which means that “deviations from these decisions are to be backed up by political rather than legal arguments” [translation raw].

    Google Scholar 

  4. See an early publication in which I already argued that on a closer look the differences between CFSP and the European Community were less important than sometimes suggested:’ De’ tweede pijler’ van de Europese Unie: een vreemde eend in de bijt?’, in: SEW Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 9/1995, pp. 554-579.

    Google Scholar 

  5. As opposed to a’ substantive’ approach, which would refer to the content of the Union’s foreign and security policy. The overview is partly provided on the basis of articles I have published on these topics over the past years; see for a complete list: httpy/www.mb.urwente.nl/legs/staff/wessel/Publications.doc/.

    Google Scholar 

  6. For a general survey of the CFSP and PJCC, see Denza, E.: The Intergovernmental Pillars of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2002 (quoted as: Denza: Intergovernmental Pillars).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Communication from the Commission, A Project for the European Union, COM (2002) 247 final, 22 May 2002, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Curtin, D.M./ Dekker, I.F.: ‘The EU as a “Layered” International Organisation: Institutional Unity in Disguise’, in: Craig, P./ De Bürca, G. (eds): The Evolution of EU Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999, pp. 83–136. See Fürther, Curtin, D.M./Dekker, I.F.: ‘The Constitutional Structure of the European Union: Some Reflections on Vertical Unity-In-Diversity’, in: Walker, N. et al., (eds): Convergence and Divergence in European Public Law. Oxford: Hart 2002. pp. 59–78; Dekker, I.F./Wessel, R.A.: ‘The European Union and the Concept of Flexibility. Proliferation of Legal Systems within International Organisations’, in: Blokker, N.M./Schermers, H.G. (eds): Proliferation of International Organisations, The Hague, Kluwer Law International 2001, pp. 381–414.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cf. Tizzano, A.: ‘The Foreign Relations Law of the EU’, in: Cannizzaro, E.: The European Union as an Actor in International Relations, The Hague, Kluwer Law International 2002, pp. 135–147 at p. 137.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See respectively Case C-170/96 (Airport Transit Visa), Case C-176/03 (Environmental Sanctions), Case C-91/05 (ECOWAS), Case C-105/03 (Pupino), and Cases T-306/01 (Yusuf) and T-315-01 (Kadi). Judgments can be found at: http://curia.europa.eu/.

    Google Scholar 

  11. This seems to be confirmed by Article 6, paragraph 3, which provides that’ [t]he Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States’.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See in general Denza: Intergovernmental Pillars.

    Google Scholar 

  13. More extensively Thym, D.: ‘Die völkerrechtlichen Verträge der Europäischen Union’, in: ZaöRV 66/ 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  14. More extensively: Trybus, M.: European Union Law and Defence Integration, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See for a recent overview Eeckhout, P.: External Relations of the European Union. Legal and Constitutional Foundations, Oxford University Press 2005; or Koutrakos, P.: EU International Relations Law, Oxford: Hart 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tomuschat, Chr.: ‘The Internationa] Responsibility of the European Union’, in: Cannizzaro, E. (ed.): The European Union as an Actor in International Relations, The Hague: Kluwer Law International 2002, pp. 177–191, at 183.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 15 November 1999, Council Press Release No. 12642/99 (Presse 344). The first formal meeting of the Defence Ministers took place in May 2002; see Conclusions of the General Affairs Council, 13-14 May 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See on the feasibility of this headline objective for instance De Wijk, R.: ’Convergence Criteria: Measuring Input or Output, in: European Foreign Affairs Review 2000, pp. 397–417.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Conclusions of the External Relations Council, 17 May 2004. On financing, see also to the Athena mechanism: Council Decision 2004/197/CFSP of 23 Feb. 2004, OJ L 63, 28.02.2004, 68, as amended by Council Decision 2004/925/EC of 22 Dec. 2004, OJ L 395, 31.12.2004, 68 and by Council Decision 2005/68/CFSP of 24 Jan. 2005, OJL 27,29.01. 2005, 59.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See for an updated list the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu, under Policies.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See Reichard, M.: ’some Legal Issues Concerning the EU-NATO Berlin Plus Agreement’, in: Nordic JIL 2004. pp. 37–68.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 17 June 2002. With regard to the EU Police Missions, however, it was also agreed that certain costs will be financed out of the community budget; see Council Joint Action 2003/141/CFSP of 27 January 2003, OJ EU L 53,28.2.2003. See also Article III-313 of the Constitutional Treaty.

    Google Scholar 

  23. The official name of the WEU Treaty is still: Treaty of Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration and Collective Defence.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nevertheless, Art. 1-16(1) still uses the term “might lead”, thereby suggesting a possibility rather than an objective. See also Naert, F.: ‘European Security and Defence Policy in the EU Constitutional Treaty’, in: Journal of Conflict & Security Law 2/2005, pp. 187–207, at 192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. See their letter of 4 December 2003, in: Misseroli, A.: From Copenhagen to Brussels: European Defence: Core Documents. Chaillot Paper No. 67, Paris: Institute for Security Studies 2003, p. 432.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Brussels European Council 25-26 March 2004, Presidency Conclusions.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See on this question: Reichard, M.: ‘The Madrid Terrorist Attacks: A Midwife for EU Mutual Defence?’, in: ZEuS2004, pp. 313–334.

    Google Scholar 

  28. For an evaluation of the external relations under the new Constitution, see in general Thym, D.: ‘Reforming Europe’s Common Foreign and Security Policy’, in: European Law Journal 2004, pp. 5–22; and Cremona, M.: ‘The Draft Constitutional Treaty: External Relations and External Action’, in: CMLRev. 2003, pp. 1347-1366.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ibid., p. 1353.

    Google Scholar 

  30. PESC is the French translation of CFSP.

    Google Scholar 

  31. See for the Dutch context in particular: Aarts, C./ Van der Kolk, H.: ’Understanding the Dutch “No”: The Euro, the East, and the Elite’, in: PS: Political Science and Politics 2006, pp 243–246. See also the Eurobarometer reports The European Constitution: Post-referendum survey in France and The Netherlands, at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opmion/flash/fl 17 l_en.pdf and http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl 172_en.pdf respectively.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for European Studies, University of Twente, The Netherlands

    Prof. Dr. Ramses A. Wessel (Professor of the Law of the European Union and other International Organizations)

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Ramses A. Wessel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Hans-Georg Ehrhart Sabine Jaberg Bernhard Rinke Jörg Waldmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wessel, R.A. (2007). The EU’s Foreign, Security and Defence Policy Fifteen Years after Maastricht: A Constitutional Momentum?. In: Ehrhart, HG., Jaberg, S., Rinke, B., Waldmann, J. (eds) Die Europäische Union im 21. Jahrhundert. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90576-1_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90576-1_25

  • Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-15501-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-531-90576-1

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation