The Internal–External Security Nexus: EU Operation Sophia Through the Lens of Securitization

  • Ana Paula BrandãoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 152)


The construction of EU security actorness has been accompanied by a narrative on security nexuses associated with the “comprehensive approach”. This trend has been intensified in recent years as demonstrated by the discourse on the “refugee crisis”, Daesh activity, hybrid threats and border security. This paper focuses on the internal–external security nexus analysed through one of its materializations notably the interface between the CSDP and the AFSJ. Based on the EU Naval Force Operation Sophia, it is argued that the comprehensive approach underlying the logic of the nexus is the result of a co-constitutive adequacy: “more security” (appropriation of policies and instruments of a multifunctional actor for security purposes) and “more actorness” (securitization of issues in order to promote the actor and its policies). The main contribution of the paper is to think critically on why and how security narratives, military instruments and securitization dynamics serve convergent processes of gaining political and public space for legitimizing policies and actions.


CSDP AFSJ Security nexus Securitization 



This paper has been developed in the framework of the collective research project: “España ante los nuevos retos de la seguridad marítima: Instrumentos y estrategias en el marco internacional, europeo y peninsular” (DER2016-78272-R), funded by Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Programa Estatal de I+D+i Orientada a los Retos de la Sociedad 2017–2019). The author also acknowledges the financial support of Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia—FCT (Portuguese Science Foundation).


  1. 1.
    For the purpose of this paper, the securitisation process was analysed through the lens of the Copenhagen School (Buzan, B., Waever, O., Wilde, J.: Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO (1998)): the security speech act on Operation Sophia by EU institutions (Council of the EU, European Council, European Commission); the (perceived) threat (human smuggling and trafficking networks in the Southern Central Mediterranean); the securitising instrument (the military operation as an extreme version of securitisation). The analysis of EU actorness was based on the three elements conceptualised by Bretherton & Vogler: opportunity (“denotes factors in the external environment of ideas and events which constrain or enable actorness”), presence (“conceptualizes the ability of the EU, by virtue of its existence, to exert influence beyond its borders”) and capability (“refers to the internal context of EU external action—the availability of policy instruments and understandings about the Union’s ability to utilize these instruments, in response to opportunity and/or to capitalize on presence”)—Bretherton, C., Vogler, J.: The European Union as a Global Actor, p. 24. Routledge, New York (2006). Two security functions were considered in the analysis of the IESN: compulsion (military operations) and protection (internal security)—Kirchner, E., Sperling, J.: EU Security Governance. Manchester University Press, Manchester (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See: the European Security Strategy (2003); the Internal Security Strategy for the EU (2010); the European Agenda on Security (2015); EU Global Strategy (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eriksson, J., Rhinard, M.: The internal–external security nexus. Notes on an emerging research agenda. Coop. Confl. 44(3), 243–267 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pastore, F.: Reconciling the Prince’s Two ‘Arms’. Internal-External Security Policy Coordination in the European Union. Occasional Paper, n. º 30. ISS, Paris (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bigo, D.: Internal and external security(ies): the Möbius ribbon. In: Albert, M., Lapid, Y., Jacobson, D. (eds.) Identities, Borders, Orders, pp. 91–116. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rehrl, J., Weisserth, H.-B. (eds.): Handbook on CSDP. Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports of the Republic of Austria, Vienna (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Council: A Secure Europe in a Better World—The European Security Strategy. European Council, Brussels, 12/13 December (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Council: 2008. Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy—Providing Security in a Changing World. European Council, Brussels (11/12) (2008); European Council: Internal Security Strategy for the European Union: Towards a European Security Model (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Council of the EU: Foreign Affairs Council (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Council of the EU: CMPD Food for Thought Paper “From Strengthening Ties Between CSDP/FSJ Actors Towards More Security in Europe” (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Council of the EU: Strengthening Ties Between CSDP and FSJ—Elements of a Draft Road Map (15562/11) (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Commission and HR: Strengthening Ties Between CSDP and FSJ Actors—Proposals for a Way Ahead (SEC/2011/560) (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tardy, T.: Operation Sophia Tackling the Refugee Crisis with Military Means. EUISS Brief (September). EUISS, Paris (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Priconi, M.: EU military Operation Sophia: analysing the shortfalls. Sci. Bull. 2(42), 122–127 (2016); Ventrella, M.: The impact of Operation Sophia on the exercise of criminal jurisdiction against migrant smugglers and human traffickers. Quest. Int. Law 30, 3–18 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rehrl, J.: Migration and CSDP. In: Handbook on CSDP, vol. 1, 3rd edn, pp. 104–113. Vienna (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    EEAS: EUNAVFOR MED—Operation SOPHIA—Six Monthly Report: 1 Jan–31 Oct 2016 (EEAS/2016/1587) (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    EEAS (European External Action Service): Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union: Missions and Operations Annual Report 2016 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Council of the EU: Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/778 of 18 May 2015 on a European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED). Off. J. Eur. Union L 122, 31–35 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    EEAS: EUNAVFOR MED Operation Factsheet (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    EDA (European Defence Agency): Operation Sophia to stop human trafficking across the Mediterranean. Defence Matters 9, 30–31 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Parliament: Ban Ki-moon on migration: “Saving lives should be the top priority”. EP News (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wosolsobe in UK (United Kingdom), House of Lords: Operation Sophia, the EU’s naval mission in the Mediterranean: an impossible challenge. European Union Committee—14th Report of Session 2015–16. HL Paper (144) (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    UK (United Kingdom), House of Lords: Operation Sophia, the EU’s naval mission in the Mediterranean: an impossible challenge. European Union Committee—14th Report of Session 2015–16. HL Paper (144) (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bevilacqua, G.: Exploring the ambiguity of Operation Sophia between military and search and rescue activities. In: Andreone, G. (ed.) The Future of the Law of the Sea Bridging Gaps Between National, Individual and Common Interests, pp. 165–189. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  25. 25.
    UK, House of Lords: Operation Sophia: a failed mission. European Union Committee—2nd Report of Session 2017–19. HL Paper (5) (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    See also critics from: Amnesty International on human rights violations (Amnesty International: European Policies Leaving Migrant Lives Adrift in the Mediterranean (2016)); spokesman of the Libyan Navy, “the first beneficiaries of this operation are not Europe or Libya, but rather the traffickers” (Euronews: The first beneficiaries of Operation Sophia are the traffickers. Insiders (21/12/2016)); Parliament of UK (UK 2016) and Operation Commander on intelligence gathering; Deputy Director of Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime on lack of full transparency (in Mathari, A.: “Mission impossible” for Operation Sophia. Global Spotlight (02 June) (2017))Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—A European Agenda on Migration (COM/2015/240). Brussels (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Council of the EU: European Union Maritime Security Strategy (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Council of the EU: Regulation (EU) No. 656/2014. Off. J. EU L (89) (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kostarakos in: EDA: Interview military capabilities: “Europe still lacks strategic enablers”. Defence Matters 11, 36–38 (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Credendino in: EEAS: EUNAVFOR MED—Operation SOPHIA—Six Monthly Report: 1 Jan–31 Oct 2016 (EEAS/2016/1587) (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CICP—University of MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations