Article 44 [Delegation of Tasks Under the CSDP]

  • Hermann-Josef Blanke
  • Stelio Mangiameli


Art. 44 TEU provides the MS of the EU with a new opportunity to use flexibility in the framework of CFSP. It gives some indications on the procedure that should apply to the launching and the management of flexible action. A group of States shall be in charge of implementing one of the tasks referred to in Art. 43.1 TEU, on the basis of the decision taken by the Council (Art. 44.1 TEU) and with the condition that the Council shall be kept regularly informed (Art. 44.2 TEU).


Security Council Security Policy Defence Policy Council Decision Military Capability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bribosia, H. (2004). Les coopérations renforcées et les nouvelles formes de flexibilité en matière de défense dans la Constitution européenne. Revue du droit de l’Union européenne, 5(4), 647–708.Google Scholar
  2. Dekker, I. F., & Wessel, R. A. (2001). The European Union and the concept of flexibility. Proliferation of legal systems within international organizations. In N. M. Blokker & H. G. Schermers (Eds.), Proliferation of international organizations (pp. 381–414). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  3. Duke, S. (1999). Consistency as an issue in EU external activities. Working Paper. 99/W/06. European Institute of Public Administration. Accessed 23 May 2012.
  4. Eaton, M. R. (1994). Common Foreign and Security Policy. In D. O’Keefe & P. Twomey (Eds.), Legal issues of the Maastricht Treaty. London: Wiley Chancery Law.Google Scholar
  5. Gauttier, P. (2004). Horizontal coherence and the external competences of the European Union. European Law Journal, 10(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Howorth, J. (2004). The European Draft Constitutional Treaty and the future of the European Defence initiative: A question of flexibility. European Foreign Affairs Review, 9(4), 1–24.Google Scholar
  7. Jaeger, T. (2002). Enhanced cooperation in the Treaty of Nice and flexibility in Common Security and Defence Policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, 7(3), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Koutrakos, P. (2007). Security and Defence Policy within the context of EU external relations: Issues of coherence, consistency and effectiveness. In M. Trybus & N. D. White (Eds.), European Security Law (pp. 249–269). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Marauhn, T. (1996). Building a European Security and Defence identity: The evolving relationship between the Western European Union and the European Union. Bochum: Universitätsverlag N Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
  10. Missiroli A. (2000). CFSP, defence and flexibility. Chaillot Paper, 38, Paris: European Union’s Institute for Security Studies. Accessed 23 May 2012.
  11. Naert, F. (2005). European Security and Defence in the EU Constitutional Treaty. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 10(2), 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Petiteville, F., & Terpan, F. (2008). L’avenir de la politique étrangère européenne. Questions internationales, 31, 64–70.Google Scholar
  13. Smith, M. E. (2001a). The quest for coherence. Institutional Dilemmas of external action from Maastricht to Amsterdam. In A. Stone Sweet, W. Sandholtz, & N. Fligstein (Eds.), The institutionalization of Europe (pp. 171–193). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith, M. E. (2001b). Diplomacy by decree: The legalization of EU Foreign Policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(1), 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Terpan, F. (2003). La politique étrangère et de sécurité commune de l’Union européenne. Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  16. Terpan, F. (Ed.). (2004). La politique européenne de sécurité et de défense. L’Union européenne peut-elle gérer les crises? Toulouse: Presses de l’Institut d’études politiques de Toulouse.Google Scholar
  17. Terpan, F. (2007). EU-NATO relations: Consistency as a strategic consideration and a legal requirement. In M. Trybus & N. D. White (Eds.), European Security Law (p. 270 et seqq.). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Terpan, F. (2008). La politique extérieure de l’Union européenne. In J. Ziller (Ed.), L’Union européenne (pp. 180–185). Paris: La documentation française.Google Scholar
  19. Terpan, F. (2011). La prise de décision dans la PESC: un mode de fonctionnement intergouvernemental controversé. In M. Blanquet (Ed.), La prise de décision dans le système de l’Union européenne (pp. 157–176). Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  20. Wessel, R. A. (2000). The inside looking out: Consistency and delimitation in EU external relations. Common Market Law Review, 37(5), 1135–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wessel, R. A. (2007). Differentiation in EU Foreign, Security and Defence Policy. In M. Trybus & N. D. White (Eds.), European Security Law (pp. 223–248). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hermann-Josef Blanke
    • 1
  • Stelio Mangiameli
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty for Economics, Law and Social ScienceUniversity of ErfurtErfurtGermany
  2. 2.National Research Council Institute for Regionalism, Federalism and Self-GovernmentRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations