From Structure to Substance: Has the Constitutional Treaty improved the Chances for a Common Foreign and Security Policy? Research Papers in Law, 6/2005

From the Introduction. A common foreign and security policy for the European Union is an issue of the day. While most academic and many political observers believe that it would be in the interest of the Union to have a common policy, there is quite some disagreement as to how this is to be achieved and whether it should be accomplished in an assured and regular manner or whether it should come about on an ad hoc basis only when it is in the clear interest of all member states at any particular time. In other words, is a common foreign policy to be a fundamental characteristic of the Union or is it to be an occasional occurrence when advantageous and convenient, the ‘C’ in CFSP – as one observer has sarcastically commented – standing not for ‘Common’ but for ‘Convenient’?2

Information Guide: Common Foreign and Security Policy

A guide to the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), with hyperlinks to sources of information within European Sources Online and on external websites

European Foreign and Security Policy since the Lisbon Treaty – From Common to single? ZEI Discussion Paper C226, 2014

Since the Lisbon Treaty, all organizational conditions have been created for the systematic use of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Military and civil structures, especially the operational headquarters and associated common structures like transport command, have been established. Until now there has been limited activity in crisis resolution, outside of Bosnia and Macedonia, and therefore little has been done in replacement of NATO. It is therefore difficult to assess the development of the common policy on conflict prevention and crisis management and it has been shown that in all cases NATO should come into play as planned from the outset.

Does Europe Need a Common Foreign & Security Policy? CES Germany & Europe Working Papers, No. 06.1, 15 September, 1996

CFSP's performance is widely regarded as weak. Why did Europe's stance in world politics not improve with the Treaty of Maastricht? The article analyses the present policy approach and the institutionalist and militarystrategic reform proposals. It is argued that policy and proposals suffer from drawbacks leading to an uncomprehensive formulation of a Common Foreign and Security Policy. Both do not provide CFSP with a necessary strategy but instead largely duplicate existing organizations. Furthermore, they propose concepts that are not viable because member states do not agree on a common defense policy. In addition, they fail to offer answers adequate to today's challenges, which are not primarily military in nature. Instead, a socioeconomic security policy appears to be a more realistic option. It is necessary because no other organization provides it sufficiently; it is viable because member states could agree on iti and it is adequate because the stabilization of countries in Eastern Europe is best achieved by social and economic policy-and not by military deterrence.

The EU’s comprehensive approach towards security: the Lisbon Treaty and “smart power”. EU Centre Singpore Policy Brief No. 6, May 2013

The European Union (EU) has increasingly become a comprehensive security actor. With the development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) as a reaction to the failure of the EU to act during the wars in Yugoslavia/Western Balkans in the 1990s, the EU has a wide range of instruments for crisis prevention, crisis management as well as post-crisis intervention at its disposal. Observers typically agree that “hard power” is no longer sufficient to address the complex security challenges of today’s world while the EU, often criticised for only utilising “soft power”, is now able to exercise “smart power”. Through a comprehensive approach, facilitated by the Lisbon Treaty, the EU can now use the various instruments at its disposal, such as diplomacy, development aid, humanitarian assistance, trade, sanctions, international cooperation and crisis management capabilities in a joined-up manner. This mix of tools and instruments is helping the EU to achieve the aim set out in its European Security Strategy: “a secure Europe in a better world”.

How can Brazil’s leading role in South America contribute to boosting security cooperation between the EU and Mercosur?

The primary goal of this paper is to discuss how the leading position of Brazil in South America could contribute to boost security cooperation between the European Union and Mercosur. Both parties share common foreign and security policy concerns, including immigration, terrorism and drug trafficking. Through its great influence on the regional security agenda, Brazil could seek closer bilateral cooperation with Europe in tackling these global challenges, acting at the same time as a representative of regional interests.

Decoding the canada's foreing and security policy: tracking the strategic and ethicliberal approaches of a middle power's behavior

The article attempts to explain the main paradox faced by Canada at formulating its foreign policy on international security. Explained in economic and political terms, this paradox consists in the contradiction between the Canadian ability to achieve its strategic goals, serving to its own national interest and its dependence on the United States. The first section outlines three representative examples to evaluate this paradox: the Canada’s position in North American security regime, the US-Canada economic security relations, and the universe of possibilities for action of Canada as a middle power. The second section suggests that liberal agenda, especially concerning to ethical issues, has been established by this country to minimize this paradox. By pursing this agenda, Canada is able to reaffirm its national identity and therefore its independence on the United States. The third section evaluates both the explained paradox and the reaffirmation of Canadian identity during the Jean Chrétien (1993-2003), Paul Martin (2003-2006) and Stephen Harper’s (2006) governments.

Identity, Ideology, and Cinema: Making Sense of Japan's Foreign and Security Policies in the 1950s and 2000s

Japan is an important ally of the United States–the world’s third biggest economy, and one of the regional great powers in Asia. Making sense of Japan’s foreign and security policies is crucial for the future of peace and stability in Northeast Asia, where the possible sources of conflict such as territorial disputes or the disputes over Japan’s war legacy issues are observed. This dissertation explored Japan’s foreign and security policies based on Japan’s identities and unconscious ideologies. It employed an analysis of selected Japanese films from the late 1940s to the late 1950s, as well as from the late 1990s to the mid-2000s. The analysis demonstrated that Japan’s foreign and security policies could be understood in terms of a broader social narrative that was visible in Japanese popular cultural products, including films and literatures. Narratives of Japanese families from the patriarch’s point of view, for example, had constantly shaped Japan’s foreign and security policies. As a result, the world was ordered hierarchically in the eyes of the Japan Self. In the 1950s, Japan tenaciously constructed close but asymmetrical security relations with the U.S. in which Japan willingly subjugated itself to the U.S. In the 2000s, Japan again constructed close relations with the U.S. by doing its best to support American responses to the 9/11 terrorist attacks by mobilizing Japan’s SDFs in the way Japan had never done in the past. The concepts of identity and unconscious ideology are helpful in understanding how Japan’s own understanding of self, of others, and of the world have shaped its own behaviors. These concepts also enable Japan to reevaluate its own behaviors reflexively, which departs from existing alternative approaches. This study provided a critical analytical explanation of the dynamics at work in Japan’s sense of identity, particularly with regard to its foreign and security policies.

Learning the ropes and embracing the rules: CFSP institutions as arenas for learning and strategic socialisation

The aim of this article is to analyse those situations in which learning and socialisation take place within the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), in particular, at the level of experts in the Council Working Groups. Learning can explain the institutional development of CFSP and changes in the foreign policies of the Member States. Some scope conditions for learning and channels of institutionalisation are identified. Socialisation, resulting from learning within a group, is perceived as a strategic action by reflective actors. National diplomats, once they arrive in Brussels, learn the new code of conduct of their Working Groups. They are embedded in two environments and faced with two logics: the European one in the Council and the national one in the Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFA). The empirical evidence supports the argument that neither rational nor sociological approaches alone can account for these processes.

The CFSP/ESDP, Parliamentary Accountability, and the ´Future of Europe´ Convention debate

This paper examines the importance that the current Convention on the Future of Europe is giving (or not) to the question of democratic accountability in European foreign and defence policy. As all European Union (EU) member states are parliamentary democracies1, and as there is a European Parliament (EP) which also covers CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) and ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy2) matters, I will concentrate on parliamentary accountability rather than democratic accountability more widely defined. Where appropriate, I will also refer to the work of other transnational parliamentary bodies such as the North Atlantic Assembly or NAA (NATO´s Parliamentary Assembly) or the Western European Union (WEU) Parliamentary Assembly3. The article will consist of three sections. First, I will briefly put the question under study within its wider context (section 1). Then, I will examine the current level of parliamentary accountability in CFSP and defence matters (section 2). Finally, I will consider the current Convention debate and assess how much attention is being given to the question of accountability in foreign and defence policies (section 3). This study basically argues that, once again, there is very little interest in an issue that should be considered as vital for the future democratic development of a European foreign and defence policy. It is important to note however that this paper does not cover the wider debate about how to democratise and make the EU more transparent and closer to its citizens. It concentrates on its Second Pillar because its claim is that very little if any attention is being given to this question