The database in brackets means that the full text of the article is available electronicaly.
The full text of the desired article can be reached by the user registered in the National Library and logged in to the search portal, either by selecting the corresponding database or e-journal.
Some journals apply an annual access restriction to full electronic texts.
To read the full text with restricted access and articles on paper only, write to firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Bunde, Tobias. Defending European integration by (symbolically) integrating European defence? Germany and its ambivalent role in European security and defence policy // Journal of European Integration (2021) Vol. 43, no. 2, p. 245-261.
For many German policymakers, a commitment to European integration in defence is a necessary means to further the end of European integration in general – in stark contrast to French leaders who see European integration as the means to reach the end of a stronger European defence. Although there is general support for European defence cooperation and even integration among the German public and state elites, other ideational factors, most notably wide-spread anti-militarist attitudes, military planners’ traditional embeddedness in NATO planning procedures, and a deep commitment to parliamentary control of the armed forces, present manifest hurdles for real capacity-building on the supranational level. As a result, German efforts to integrate defence policy within the EU have been largely symbolic, while real progress takes place in other (bilateral or minilateral and often German-led) frameworks. Berlin has thus contributed considerably to the increasing institutional fragmentation and territorial differentiation in European defence.[Taylor & Francis Journals of Complete]
- Angelucci, Davide; Isernia, Pierangelo.Politicization and security policy: Parties, voters and the European Common Security and Defense Policy // European Union Politics (2020) Vol 21, No. 1, p. 64–86.
The Common Security and Defense Policy of the European Union has recently come to the forefront as a potential force of integration. This study explores the consequences (if any) of such a move, investigating how likely it is for Common Security and Defense Policy to be politicized and become a new area of dissent. The article explores conditions of politicization at three different levels of analysis: (a) the systemic level, where Common Security and Defense Policy position in a bi-dimensional political space (left–right and anti-pro EU) is discussed; (b) the party level, where potentially successful issue entrepreneurs of Common Security and Defense Policy are identified; (c) the individual voter level, where the probabilities of being mobilized by issue entrepreneurs of Common Security and Defense Policy are assessed. Our analysis suggests that although Common Security and Defense Policy is prone to be politicized and right-wing parties are the most likely group to do so, this move may backfire as right-wing voters are less likely to be mobilized on Common Security and Defense Policy compared to their left-wing counterpart. We discuss the implications of these results for the conceptualization of politicization and European integration. [SAGE Journals]
- Mogherini, Federica (Gest Editorial). Serving the Union Foreign and Security Policy // European Foreign Affairs Review (2020) Vol 25, No 2, pp. 155 – 158. [Kluwer Law Online]
- Torö, Csaba. Blueprints and Modalities of Status Arrangements for CSDP Operations and Missions // European Foreign Affairs Review (2020) Vol 25, No 2, p. 261 – 280.
Status agreements for EU crisis management operations and missions represent a necessary legal aspect of their consensual conduct and completion. The adopted Status of Forces (SOFA) and Status of Mission (SOMA) Model Agreements for military and civilian deployments respectively have been implemented regularly in Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) undertakings for the presence and transit of EU-led multinational contingents and assets on land or at sea. Variations and repetition in the application of the ready standard frameworks dominate the spectrum of evolved practice, but casual and adaptive solutions have also indicated the occasional need for specific modalities of status arrangements for CSDP operations and missions. These include the extension of existing SOFA arrangements of an EU member, a UN peacekeeping mission or North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to an EU-led successive, supplementary or reinforcing multinational engagement in the same theatre of operation. With respect to non-standard arrangements for certain civilian CSDP crisis management deployments, their status came to be defined as activities of diplomatic missions due to the particular nature and context of EU undertakings in Bosnia, in Congo or in Kosovo. The available blueprints and tested modalities of status arrangements offer a comprehensive set of examples for the choice of adequate solutions for any future CSDP operation or mission.[Kluwer Law Online]
- Herranz-Surralles, Anna. Paradoxes of parliamentarization in European security and defence: when politicization and integration undercut parliamentary capital // Journal of European Integration (2019) Vol. 41, no. 1, p. 29-45.
European security and defence policy has long been an elusive domain for parliaments. However, two recent developments invite a reassessment of this situation. On the one hand, since 2016, the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) has taken on a qualitative step towards further integration. On the other, security and defence issues are becoming more politicized, as shown by the growing polarization of vote at the European Parliament. Studies of parliamentarization have considered both processes (integration and politicization) to be positively correlated with an increase of parliamentary involvement. However, this paper argues that the democracy-enhancing effect of integration and politicization is not straightforward, but depends on the degree and character of these two processes. This point is illustrated by the evolution of supranational parliamentary scrutiny of CSDP, where contrary to the expectations, the recent boost in integration and greater politicization have translated in a relative decline of ‘parliamentary capital’. [Tylor & Frances Online]
- Svendsen, Øyvind. Brexit and the future of EU defence: a practice approach to differentiated defence integration // Journal of European Integration (2019) Vol. 41, no 8, p. 993-1007.
What consequences will Brexit have for EU defence integration? Answering this question, the article analyses the new visions for the future of EU defence that emerged in the debate after the Brexit vote. In doing so, the paper moves beyond institutionalism and argues that a practice approach to Brexit paves the way for a deeper understanding of EU integration as a social process and of the effects of Brexit. Through a study of the debates and concrete developments in EU defence since the Brexit referendum, the article shows how defence - an area already subject to differentiation - has enabled innovative visions for defence integration in post-Brexit Europe across three dimensions: the military, the political and the economic. Building on this analysis, the paper concludes on the possible consequences of Brexit for EU defence and the value of a practice approach to differentiated defence integration. [Tylor & Francis Journals Complete]
- Blockmans, Steven. The EU´s modular approach to defence integration: An inclusive, ambitious and legally binding PESCO? // Common Market Law Review (2018) Vol. 55, no. 6, p. 1785-1826.
In response to the need expressed by European leaders to protect their citizens better against security threats emanating from within and outside the EU´s borders, a package of defensive measures has been developed with remarkable speed. Premanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) in the area of defence is the most emblematic innovation in his regard. This unique form of enchanced cooperation was triggered under Article 46 TEU. [Paberväljaanne]
- Duke, Simon. The Enigmatic Role of Defence in the EU: From EDC to EDU? // European Foreign Affairs Review (2018) Vol. 23, no. 1, p. 63–80.
The ‘D’ in the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) has always been taken for granted with relatively little thought until recently about what it actually means. ‘Defence’, often mentioned alongside security, has an enigmatic quality which has rendered the ‘D’ in CSDP essentially silent. The article posits two inter-related questions. First, in what ways has defence appeared in the European integration narrative, especially more recently? Second, how seriously should advocacy of a common defence for the EU be taken and what are the opportunities and challenges associated with the notion? It will be argued that defence per se is part of the EU’s new level of ambition but the generic use of the term is being rapidly reshaped by geopolitical concerns and possible longer-term changes in transatlantic relations that may lead to a common defence, which is less likely to be a rehashed European Defence Community (EDC) than something based upon variable geometry and permanent structured cooperation. [Paberväljaanne]
- Kostarkos, Mikhail. Guest Editorial: The role of the European Union Military Committee in EU external relations // European Foreign Affairs Review (2018) Vol. 4, no. 4, p. 435-438. [Paberväljaanne]
- Larik, Joris. The EU´s Global Strategy, Brexit and “America First” // European Foreign Affairs Review (2018) Vol. 23, No. 3, p. 343-364. [Paberväljaanne]
In less unusual times, The European Union´s Glbal Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy would have been received as merely yhe latest iteration of the main tenets and ambitions of EU external action – this time with an enhanced dose of pragmantism to respond to a more challenging international environment. However, with “Brexit” looming large and one and a half years into the Trump Presidency in the United States, the Global Strategy has acquired a new level of significance. This article argues that while meant to express a largely uncontroversial “Western” consensus, it now needs to be re-contextualized as a distinctive vision in the face of trends on antiglobalism and Euroscepticism.
- Martill, Bemjamin; Sus, Monika. Post-Brexit EU/UK security cooperation: NATO, CSDP+, or ‘French connection’? // The British Journal of Politics and International Relations (2018) Vol. 20, no. 4, p. 846-863.
The purpose of this article is to understand the EU/UK security relationship after Brexit and the institutional form(s) it may take. Taking stock of the literature on the consequences of Brexit for European foreign affairs, this article employs a question-driven approach to examine uncertainties regarding the future EU/UK security relationship. These questions relate in particular to the United Kingdom’s commitment to European security after Brexit, the nature of post-Brexit developments within the Union, and the European Union’s willingness to afford the United Kingdom a substantial role after withdrawal. This article examines each of these questions in turn, before considering the viability of three frequently mooted institutional arrangements post-Brexit: UK participation in the CSDP as a third country; increased engagement with NATO that becomes the main platform for cooperation between the United Kingdom and the European Union; and the enhancement of bilateral ties between the United Kingdom and key European allies – especially France. [SAGE journals]
- Mason, Robert. The Syria Conflict and the Euro-Med Refugee Crisis: An Opportunity to Enhance the Common Foreign and Security Policy? // European Foreign Affairs Review (2018) Vol. 23, no. 1, p. 81–95.
The Syrian conflict, including the intervention of external actors and foreign fighters, has caused the greatest humanitarian crisis since the Second World War and a new wave of refugees seeking asylum in the European Union (EU), along with other economic migrants. Many of them have been aided by illegal people traffickers and have landed in Greece from Turkey, on Italian islands such as Lampedusa, been picked up by assets under operation Triton conducted by Frontex, the EU’s border agency, or drowned at sea. Since the Arab Uprisings started in 2011, there has been an acknowledged threat in the EU from political instability and insecurity in the Mediterranean region. However, a lack of specific, integrated and substantial EU Mediterranean responses has meant that the EU has struggled to address the insecurity and humanitarian situations. There has also been limited inter-regional cooperation to address the long-term drivers of migration. This article highlights the EU response to the Syrian refugee crisis in particular, within the context of an evolving Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and how some revisions to it could address a series of negative dynamics such as people trafficking, conflict and a lack of development. [Paberväljaanne]
- Schade, Daniel. Limiting or liberating? The influence of parliaments on military deployments in multinational settings // The British Journal of Politics and International Relations (2018) Vol. 20, no. 1, p. 84-103.
Multilateral contexts often complicate parliaments’ efforts to scrutinise and influence security policy, as parliaments usually work in a national setting. This article explores how the internationalisation of security policy has altered parliamentary constraints on executive decision-making. It focuses on cases where multilateral decision-making is particularly advanced and studies military deployments under the auspices of the European Union’s (EU’s) Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Using the examples of France, the United Kingdom and Germany, the article examines how the policy’s location at the intersection of decision-making on security and EU matters creates new opportunities for member state parliaments to scrutinise it. Yet, as an analysis of three CSDP military operations shows, these opportunities do not always translate into increased scrutiny practice and vary in line with factors such as national troop contributions, distinct political traditions and an operation’s salience. [SAGE Premier]
- Scheffel, Nikolaus. Auf dem Weg zu einer europäischen Verteidigungsunion // Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (2018) nr. 18, lk. 1347-1353. ELi riikide kaitsekoostööst ja PESCO (alaline
struktureeritud koostöö) käivitamisest. [BECK]
- Elsuwege, Peter Van. Upholding the rule of law in the Common Foreign and Security Policy: H v. Council // Common Market Law Review (2017) Vol 54, No 3, p.841-858. [Paberväljaanne]
- Howorth, Jolyon. European defence policy between dependence and autonomy: A challenge of Sisyphean dimensions // British Journal of Politics & International Relations (2017), Vol. 19 Issue 1, p. 13-28. [Academic Search Complete (EBSCO); Sage Premier]
There have been two critical moments in Europe’s tortuous attempts to generate a viable, collective, relatively autonomous, trans-national defence project: the first decade after World War II, and the early decades of the 21st century. In both cases, the main features of the project were similar and in both cases there was an implicit or even explicit symbiosis between European integration and defence integration.
- Litsas, Spyridon N. The European Common Security and Defense Concept: Opportunities and Challenges // Mediterranean Quarterly (2017) Vol. 28, no. 3, p. 56-67.
This essay analyses one of the most common yet stagnated concepts of European politics—the common security and defense prospects of Europe. The analysis shows that although a common security and defense cooperation scheme has been a mainstay of European political discourse since the end of World War II, discussion never resulted in a concrete or realistic plan. The reasons for this emphatic failure can be found in the political complexities of the European structure and in the difficulties of implementing such a challenging plan.
- Moskalenko, Oleksandr; Streltsov, Volodymyr. Shaping a “Hybrid” CFSP to face “Hybrid” security challanges // European Foreign Affairs Review (2017) Vol. 22, no. 4, p. 513-532.
Dispite the formal abolition of the “pillars”, in practice they have been preserved by special rules for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The current academic discource about the CFSP reflects the dichotomy of supranational and intergovernmental EU components /…/. The article argues that the further development of supranational practice within the CFSP is a rational response to current “hybrid” challenges. This argument is supported by the post-Lisbon CFSP institutional dynamics, which revel the need for synergy in the polcy area and simultaneously offers a number of practical steps towards re-shaping its institutional architecture. [Paberväljaanne]
- Poli, Sara. The Common Foreign Security Policy after Rosneft: Still imperfect but gradually suject to the run of law // Common Market Law Review (2017) Vol. 54, No. 6, p. 1799-1834.
Case C-72/15, The Queen (PJSC Rosneft Oil Company) v. Her Majesty´s Treasury, Judgement of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), of 28 March 2017, EU:C:2017:236. [Paberväljaanne]
- Rees, Wyn. America, Brexit and the security of Europe // The British Journal of Politics and International Relations (2017) Vol. 19, No 3, p. 558–572.
The Obama administration played a surprisingly interventionist role in the UK referendum on membership of the European Union (EU), arguing that a vote to leave would damage European security. Yet this article contends that US attitudes towards the EU as a security actor, and the part played within it by the United Kingdom, have been much more complex than the United States has sought to portray. [SAGE Journals Onlines]
- Schilde, Kaija. European Military Capabilities: Enablers and Constraints on EU Power? // Journal of Common Market Studies (2017) Vol. 55 No. 1, p. 37-53.
How should we understand the role of the EU in the world – and its relational power vis-à-vis other international actors? And to what degree is the Russia-Ukraine crisis a critical juncture in EU power dynamics over time? This contribution to this Special Issue evaluates EU power through the lens of material power and capabilities, and analyzes patterns and changes in material capabilities as indicators of threat and strategic assessments. [Business Source Complete (EBSCO)]
- Biscop, Sven. All or nothing? The EU Global Strategy and defence policy after the Brexit // Contemporary Security Policy (2016) Vol. 37, No 3, p. 431-445.
The public expects European governments and the European Union (EU) to deal with the security challenges in and around Europe. So does the US, whose strategic focus has pivoted to the Pacific. Washington, DC has made it clear that it will not, and cannot, solve all of Europe’s problems. The call for ‘strategic autonomy’ in the new EU Global Strategy of June 2016 does not come a moment too soon. But should the aim be EU strategic autonomy, without the UK, or can the aspiration still be European strategic autonomy, with the UK? [Taylor & Francis Online]
- Eckes, Christina. Common Foreign and Security Policy: The Consequences of the Court’s Extended Jurisdiction // European Law Journal (2016) Vol. 22, No 4, p. 492-518. Despite the explicit exclusion of its jurisdiction, the Court of Justice of the European Union exercises judicial control over Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This article examines and explains how the Court’s extended jurisdiction contributes to the juridification, judicialisation and constitutionalisation of the EU’s compound CFSP structures. It first lays the groundwork by explaining the link between constitutionalisation and democratic legitimation and setting out the Court’s formal jurisdiction over CFSP under Article 40 Treaty on European Union and Articles 218(11) and 275(2) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The centre piece of the article then identifies how the Court’s jurisdiction has expanded since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, points at additional ‘substantive’ avenues of judicial review on the basis of access to information and access to justice, and analyses the effects of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s extended jurisdiction for CFSP. [Academic Search Complete (EBSCO)]
- Michalski, Anna; Norman, Ludvig. Conceptualizing European security cooperation: Competing international political orders and domestic factors // European Journal of International Relations (2016) Vol. 22, No. 4, p. 749-772.
It is commonly argued that political elites in Europe are increasingly acting in accordance with shared norms, identities and practices, thus shaping the character of international cooperation in Europe, not least in the field of security. However, in contrast to such expectations, European security cooperation often displays highly irregular and unpredictable patterns. [Sage Journals Onlines]
- Mälksoo, Maria. From the ESS to the EU Global Strategy: external policy, internal purpose // Contemporary Security Policy (2016) Vol 37, No. 3, p. 374-388.
Security strategies are important sites for narrating the EU into existence as a security actor. The unveiling of a new global strategy on foreign and security policy for the EU immediately post-Brexit could be conceived as a pledge to remain together as a Union for the purposes of contributing to global security in a particular way. This paper offers a brief stock-taking of the EU’s way of writing security from the European Security Strategy (2003) to the EU Global Strategy (2016). [Taylor & Francis Online]
- Riddervold, Marianne. (Not) in the hands of the Member States: How the European Commission influences EU Security and Defence Policies // Journal of Common Market Studies: JCMS (2016) Vol. 54, No. 2, p. 353-369.
The European Union´s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) is run using special procedures. The Member States have not delegated powers to the supranational institutions. Yet a number of studies challenge yhe assumption that policy-making lies exclusively with Member States´ governments. [Business Source Complete (EBSCO)]
- Riekeles, Georg. A Security and Defence Union // European View (2016) Vol.15, No.1, p.13-26.
Security and defence have become the new front lines of the European project. The time has come to build a Security and Defence Union capable of delivering security to Europe’s citizens and the wider continent in a challenging international environment. It should be based on five qualitative leaps: a security strategy for Europe, an institutional revamp, renewed military ambition, integration of defence capabilities and a new partnership with NATO. With the forthcoming Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy , the follow-up ‘white book’–process and the Commission’s defence action plan, 2016 offers the strategic sequence necessary for the Union to move forward. [SpringerOpen Free]
- Whitman, Richard G. The UK and EU Foreign, Security and Defence Policy after Brexit: Integrated, Associated or Detached? // National Institute Economic Review (2016) Vol. 238, No. 1, p. R43–R50
None of the existing models for the future trade policy relationship between the UK and the EU come with a predetermined foreign and security policy relationship. This article assesses how the future EU-UK foreign and security policy relationship might be organised post-Brexit. [SAGE Journals Online]
- Bremberg, Niklas. The European Union as Security Community-Building Institution: Venues, Networks and Co-operative Security Practices // Journal of Common Market Studies (2015) Vol. 53, No 3, p. 674-692.
How does the European Union promote security beyond its borders? This article answers this seemingly straightforward question by exploring how the EU works as security community-building institution vis-à-vis non-members. Drawing upon practice theory in International Relations, the article unpacks the security community concept, focusing especially on the relation between co-operative security practices and the expansion of security communities. [Business Source Complete (EBSCO)]
- Irondelle, Bastien; Mérand, Frédéric; Foucault, Martial. Public support for European defence: Does strategic culture matter? // European Journal of Political Research (2015), Vol. 54 , No. 2, p. 363-383.
This article identifies previously ignored determinants of public support for the European Union’s security and defence ambitions. In contrast to public opinion vis-à-vis the EU in general, the literature on attitudes towards a putative European army or the existing Common Security and Defence Policy ( CSDP) suggests that the explanatory power of sociodemographic and economic variables is weak, and focuses instead on national identity as the main determinant of one’s support. This article explores the possible impact of strategic culture, and argues that preferences vis-à-vis the EU’s security and defence ambitions are formed in part through pre-existing social representations of security. [Academic Search Complete (EBSCO)]
- Rosen, Guri. EU confidential: The European Parliament ́s involement in EU security and defence policy // Journal of Common Market Studies (2015) Vol. 53, No. 2, p. 383-398.
In 2002, the European Parliament (EP) and the Council concluded an Interinstitutional Agreement that gave the EP privileged access to sensitive documents in the area of security and defence. [Business Source Complete (EBSCO)]
- Pabriks, Artis. European security: stop sleeping and wake up // European View (2014) Vol. 13, No. 2, p. 259-268.
The twenty-first century has come with new security challenges, some of which are being played out very close to Europe’s borders. One of the latest examples is Russia’s growing aggression, which is challenging European political principles and core values. Russia appears to be testing the unity and strength of the Western world.
- Pohl, Benjamin. To what ends? Governmental interests and European Union (non-)intervention in Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo // Cooperation and Conflict (2014) Vol. 49, No. 2, p. 191-211.
Since the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy framework became operational in 2003, the Union has undertaken more than 20 crisis management operations. The drivers behind this activity remain debated. This article proposes a fresh interpretation based on governmental interests as defined by domestic political risks and opportunities. [Sage Journals Onlines]
- Panayotova, Monika. It is time for strategic rethinking // European View (2014) Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 153-160.
It is time for Europe to undertake a major strategic rethink in the field of security and defence. The article looks at why this is the case and makes recommendations and conclusions on three key elements for EU consideration: the new challenges and the complex nature of security threats faced by the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy, the new policy environment and legal framework after 2009, and the need for a new or an updated European security strategy.
- Rayroux, Antoine. Speaking EU defence at home: Contentious discourses and constructive ambiguity // Cooperation and Conflict (2014) Vol. 49, No. 3, p. 386-405.
Using discursive institutionalism as an analytical framework, this article addresses how national actors build, coordinate and communicate discourses on EU defence policy (CSDP) at home. The empirical analysis is based on a comparative study of substantive and interactive discourses in France and Ireland, two contrasted cases. [Sage Journals Onlines]
- Cross, Mai’a K. Davis. The Military Dimension of European Security: An Epistemic Community Approach // Millennium: Journal of International Studies (2013) Vol. 42, No. 1, p. 45-64.
This article advances the argument that security integration is occurring in the European Union (EU) as a result of the influence of certain knowledge-based networks or epistemic communities. Given that EU member-states consistently resist integration in areas that are central to traditional state sovereignty, security integration presents a puzzle. [Sage Journals Onlines]
- Rayroux, Antoine. Beyond Actorness in EU Crisis Management: Internal Functions of External Peacekeeping // Journal of European Integration (2013) Vol. 35, No. 7, p. 731-748.
What do European crisis management operations in remote places reveal about the EU’s political ambitions and about the present state of European integration? [Taylor & Francis Journals Complete]
- Biscop, Sven. The UK and European defence: leading or leaving? // International Affairs (2012) Vol. 88, No. 6, p. 1297-1313.
The UK, with France, initiated the European, today Common, Security and Defence Policy (ESDP/CSDP) in 1998–9. A strong consensus on the need to address capability shortfalls, which the UK accepted to attempt under the EU flag, however masked the lack of consensus about the extent to which the EU would also make policy and launch operations (which would require permanent planning and conduct structures). [Academic Search Complete (EBSCO; Business Source Complete (EBSCO)]
- Dijkstra, Hylke. Agenda-setting in the Common Security and Defence Policy: An institutionalist perspective // Cooperation and Conflict (2012) Vol. 47, No. 4, p. 454-472. The European Union (EU) has launched an impressive number of crisis management missions since its Common Security and Defence Policy became operational in 2003. This article analyses the agenda-setting phase of these civilian and military operations in order to explain why the EU has sent troops, policemen, judges, prosecutors and monitors across three continents. [Sage Journals Onlines]
- Howorth, Jolyon. Decision-making in security and defense policy: Towards supranational inter-governmentalism? // Cooperation and Conflict (2012) Vol. 47, No. 4, p. 433-453.
For scholars and practitioners of European politics alike, the distinction between supranationalism and inter-governmentalism has always been fundamental. This distinction has underpinned the various schools of European integration theory, just as it has remained crucial for European governments keen to demonstrate that the Member States remain in charge of key policy areas. [Sage Journals Onlines]
- Jacobs, And. EU Crisis Management in Berlin: The Fall of Ministerial Walls? // West European Politics (2012) Vol. 25, No. 3, p. 466-490.
The EU’s civilian and military crisis management operations have grown in number, complexity, and geographical outreach. In the absence of EU-level capabilities, the success of EU external crisis management is highly dependent on the timely delivery of national financial, human, and material resources. [Taylor & Francis Journals Complete]
- Schlag, Gabi. Into the ‘Heart of Darkness’ — EU’s civilising mission in the DR Congo // Journal of International Relations and Development (2012) Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 321-344.
‘Normative Power Europe’, a concept introduced by Ian Manners in 2002 in order to describe the international identity of the European Union, remains a lasting point of reference for academic as well as political debates. [Academic Search Complete (EBSCO); Business Source Complete (EBSCO; ProQuest Research Library]
- Styan, David. EU power and armed humanitarianism in Africa: evaluating ESDP in Chad // Cambridge Review of International Affairs (2012) Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 651-668.
This article analyses the European Union’s largest European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) military mission outside Europe to date; Eufor Tchad/RCA was a 3700-strong force involving personnel from 23 states, deployed to Chad and the Central African Republic for 12 months from March 2008. [Academic Search Complete (EBSCO)]
- Zwolski, Kamil. The EU as an international security actor after Lisbon: Finally a green light for a holistic approach? // Cooperation and Conflict (2012) Vol. 47, No. 1, p. 68-87.
This article argues that a holistic approach is important when studying the European Union’s role as an international security actor, but at the same time it identifies problems in adopting such a comprehensive research agenda. [Sage Journals Onlines]
- Beyer, Jessica L; Hofmann, Stephanie C. Varieties of neutrality // Cooperation and Conflict (2011) Vol. 46, No. 3, p. 285-311.
With the end of the Cold War, the neutral countries of Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden have grappled with the question of what their neutrality means in relation to membership in the European Union’s (EU) Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Partnership for Peace (PfP). [Sage Journals Onlines]
- Bickerton, Chris J.; Irondelle, Bastien; Menon, Anand. Security Co-operation beyond the Nation-State: The EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy // Journal of Common Market Studies (2011) Vol. 49, No. 1, p. 1-21.
The article presents a critical overview of research on the European Union’s Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). Topics discussed include the evolving nature of the CSDP and the shift in its focus from European to global concerns, achievements of the CSDP, the debate on the performance and effectiveness of the CSDP, and theoretical frameworks within which to view the CSDP, among them international relations theories and an institutional perspective. [Business Source Complete (EBSCO)]
- Devine, Karen. Neutrality and the development of the European Union’s common security and defence policy // Cooperation and Conflict (2011) Vol. 46, No. 3, p .334-36. This article examines the content of concepts of neutrality articulated in elite and public discourses in the context of the development of the European Union’s (EU) Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). [Sage Journals Onlines]
- Greiçevci, Labinot. EU Actorness in International Affairs: The Case of EULEX Mission in Kosovo // Perspectives on European Politics and Society (2011) Vol. 12, No. 3, p. 283-303.
This article discusses one of the missions of the European Union Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and, so far, the biggest EU mission in the area of conflict management: the rule of law mission in Kosovo, dubbed EULEX Kosovo. [Academic Search Complete (EBSCO)]
- Lavallée, Chanta. The European Commission’s Position in the Field of Security and Defence: An Unconventional Actor at a Meeting Point // Perspectives on European Politics and Society (2011) Vol. 12, No. 4, p. 371-389.
Due to its indirect role in the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), the European Commission seems to be a marginal actor in European security governance. As a result, there is little analysis of its role in this field. [Academic Search Complete (EBSCO)]
- Lord, Christopher. The political theory and practice of parlamentary participation in the Common Security and Defence Policy // Journal of European Public Policy (2011) Vol. 18, No. 8 (special issue), p. 1133-1150.
This contribution develops normative arguments for the democratic and parliamentary control of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). However, on the Kantian assumption that ‘ought implies can’, it also tries to make a case for parliamentary control in the face of scepticism about parliamentary politics in general, the capacities of the European Parliament (EP) and national parliaments to exercise satisfactory levels of public control over Union decisions, and the participation of parliaments in security decisions.
- Menon, Anand. European Defence Policy from Lisbon to Libya // Survival (2011) Vol. 53, No. 3, p.75-90.
The EU’s inactivity in the face of a crisis with obvious security implications for its member states has led to anguished soul searching. [Academic Search Complete (EBSCO)]
- Olsen, Gorm Rye. How Strong Is Europeanisation, Really? The Danish Defence Administration and the Opt-Out from the European Security and Defence Policy // Perspectives on European Politics and Society (2011) Vol. 12, No. 1, p.13-28.
The article questions how strong Europeanisation is as an explanation of administrative changes in EU member states. Denmark has an opt-out from the European cooperation on defence, and, therefore, its defence administration represents a critical or a less likely case to test the Europeanisation thesis. [Academic Search Complete (EBSCO)]
- Mérand, Frédéric; Hofmann, Stéphanie C.; Irondelle, Bastien. Governance and State Power: A Network Analysis of European Security // Journal of Common Market Studies (2011) Vol. 49, No. 1, p. 121-147.
A growing number of scholars argue that the development of the common security and defence policy (CSDP) should be analysed as the institutionalization of a system of security governance. Although governance approaches carry the promise of a sophisticated, empirically grounded picture of CSDP, they have been criticized for their lack of attention to power. [Business Source Complete (EBSCO)]
- Rynning, Sten. Realism and the Common Security and Defence Policy // Journal of Common Market Studies (2011) Vol. 49, No. 1, p. 23-42.
The European Union has ventured into the business of power politics with its common security and defence policy (CSDP). Realism can explain both why the EU is being pulled into this business and why it is failing to be powerful. [Business Source Complete (EBSCO)]
- Thym, Daniel. The Intergovernmental Constitution of the EU’s Foreign, Security & Defence Executive // European Constitutional Law Review (2011) Vol. 7, No. 3, p. 453-480.
European Union – Common Foreign and Security Policy – Changes with the abolition of the pillar structure by the Lisbon Treaty – Common Security and Defence Policy – Executive order of the EU – Between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism – The role of the High Representative – Joint political leadership – The European External Action Service as an administrative infrastructure – Constitutionalisation of foreign affairs. [Academic Search Complete (EBSCO); ProQuest Research Library]
- Bossong, Raphael; Benner, Thorsten. The case for a public administration turn in the study of the EU’s civilian crisis management // Journal of European Public Policy (2010) Vol. 17, No. 7, p. 1074-1086.
This contribution argues for extending the public administration turn in EU studies to the civilian Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). First it delineates the research gap with regard to governance networks and sections of the Council Secretariat that fulfil executive and operational management responsibilities for civilian crisis management. [Taylor & Francis Journals Complete]
- Ferreira-Pereira, Laura; Groom, A. ‘Mutual solidarity’ within the EU common foreign and security policy: What is the name of the game? // International Politics (2010) Vol. 47, No. 6, p. 596-616.
This article assesses the effective meaning, scope and implications of intra-Community solidarity in the security and defence area. [ProQuest Research Library]
- Mendoza. Alan. European defence in the long run: can Europe play a leading role in a multipolar world? // European View (2010) Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 233-240.
The global system is moving away from an order in which a Western state, most recently the US, is at the centre. Instead, the rise of China and India and other emerging economies, has caused a shift towards multipolarity. There is cause for concern as these new powers are not founded on the same values as those of Europe and the US.
- Norheim-Martinsen, Per M. Beyond Intergovernmentalism: European Security and Defence Policy and the Governance Approach // Journal of Common Market Studies (2010) Vol. 48, No. 5, p.1351-1365.
Over the last decade, the EU has developed into a regional institution whose military ambitions extend well beyond Europe. This development counteracts the assumptions of realist and intergovernmental theories, raising the question of what concepts appropriate for understanding security and defence policy in the EU. [Business Source Complete (EBSCO)]
- Selden, Zachary. Power is Always in Fashion: State ‐ Centric Realism and the European Security and Defence Policy // Journal of Common Market Studies (2010) Vol. 48, No. 2, p. 397-416.
The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) is in large part a product of the institutional development of the EU and the consolidation of its authority over internal issues. This parallels the development of the United States as a global actor shortly after the federal government consolidated power over domestic affairs in the 1890s. [Business Source Complete (EBSCO)]
- Soler I Lecha, Eduard. Converging, Diverging and Instrumentalizing European Security and Defence Policy in the Mediterranean // Mediterranean Politics (2010) Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 231-248.
This article addresses the degree of convergence, divergence and in some cases indifference of Southern and Eastern Mediterranean Countries towards the European Security and Defence Policy. [Academic Search Complete (EBSCO)]