The EU as an International Security Provider: The Need for a Mid-range Theory
ANNEMARIE PEEN RODT, RICHARD G. WHITMAN and STEFAN WOLFF
There is an increasing amount of scholarship on the EUâs international security role, but most of it remains focused on security aspects in specific policy areas, such as Union enlargement, European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), development assistance and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).1 Some scholars have also examined the Unionâs role in this regard across various regions of the world2 or discussed it in the context of (grand) strategy3 and strategic culture.4 Another strand in the literature has focused on particular conceptions of security, such as human security or comprehensive security, and how they are reflected in EU policy.5 A number of authors examine the EUâs place in the international arena of security organisations and the way in which the Union manages to find its place and cooperate (or not) with other actors that have been engaged in this areaâoften much longer than the EU.6 Finally, there is a persistent strand of scholarship focused on the EUâs internal processes of security policy making within and among EU institutions and member states as well as increasingly between them.7 Most of this otherwise relevant literature, however, remains focused on the actual process of policy making and its institutionalisation, including the dynamics of inter-governmental bargaining and linkages between EU institutions and member states.8 A considerably smaller, albeit growing body of literature is focused on what the EU actually achieves with its security policies. While empirically rich, this strand of the literature is significantly less developed theoretically and often does not connect sufficiently with the more established but traditionally inward-looking EU literature.9
The purpose of this collection is to draw some of these diverse strands of scholarship together to develop a more comprehensive approach to the analysis of the EUâs increasingly complex role as an international security provider. This can then serve as the foundation for developing a mid-range theory of the EU as an international security provider, which would account for both outcomes of the EU internal policy-making processes and their effectiveness in providing security. Such a theory would need to describe accurately the various actors involved, their relative influence and the dynamics and results of the policy-making process that ensues in their interaction. While we have beenâand continue to beâopen to different theoretical, conceptual and methodological approaches, one of our aims is to synthesise and further develop existing theories in order to arrive at an integrated theoretical approach to the EU as an international security actor, more broadly conceived than is often the case. With this overarching objective in mind, we argue that such theory-making would need to, first, synthesise and apply existing theoretical frameworks of international relations, security, organisation as well as foreign policy analysis to the case of the EU; second, conceptualise the notion of âactornessââor agencyâin the context of the EU as an international security provider and relate it in detail to the process of policy-making; third, examine empirically how the EU conceptualises security overall and how this feeds into different policy areas relevant to its international security role, including, in particular, the formulation of international security policies; fourth, investigate empirically whether and how outcomes of the policy-making process translate into impacts, including whether and why particular policies are more/less likely to succeed in achieving EU objectives and providing security; finally, use single and comparative case studies to reflect on the utility of particular theoretical approaches to the study of the EU as an international security provider, all in order to contribute towards further theoretical development in this area.
This collection is meant to serve as a point of departure for that endeavour and to encourage dialogue among scholars from different sub-fields of political science and international relations. It begins to chart a path towards integrating theoretical and empirical debates on the EU as an international security provider and to bridge the traditional gap between accounts of policy-making and policy impact. While marking the beginning of this longer journey, our collection also presents the fruits of an ongoing collaborative research agenda, which, over several years and with support from the British Academy, the UKâs Economic and Social Research Council, the European Consortium for Political Research as well as the Universities of Bath, Birmingham, Kent, Nottingham and Roskilde, has brought together our contributors at a number of workshops, seminars and conferences, leading to a variety of scholarly outputs10 but also engagement with policy makers in EU institutions and at national as well as international levels.
The six contributions brought together in this issue represent both a state-of-the-art review of current knowledge and understanding. Furthermore, they push its boundaries towards the mid-range theory of the EU as an international security provider, which we argue is critically missing in current debates on the EUâs international role.
In the opening contribution, âThe European Security Continuum and the EU as an International Security Providerâ, Alistair Shepherd argues that the European Union has long been seen as a distinctive or sui generis actor in international politics, epitomised by the notions of civilian or normative power, or more recently, by the âComprehensive Approachâ. However, these conceptualisations of the EU as a distinctive international security provider are being challenged by the blurring of the traditional internalâexternal security divide. The threats and challenges identified in the various EU security strategies increasingly transcend geographic and bureaucratic boundaries, creating what Shepherd calls a âEuropean security continuumâ, which complicates the conceptualisation and operationalisation of the EU as a unique security provider. Significant friction continues to exist in the formulation and implementation of security policy as EU institutions and capabilities struggle to overcome the traditional architecture separating internal and external security. In parallel, the cross-fertilisation of internal and external security norms and practices undermines extant understandings of the EUâs role as a normative actor.
Following on from this, Benjamin Pohl and Niels van Willigen discuss âAnalytic Eclecticism and EU Foreign Policy (In)Actionâ. They suggest that 12 years after the EU began to deploy crisis management operations, their underlying drivers are still disputed. They argue that this state of theory is partly due to the staleness of many theoretical debates in international relations. In response, they call for analytic eclecticism, hoping to combine causal mechanisms from various theoretical traditions where this promises new insights into real-world phenomena. This article sets out to provide such an eclectic framework for the purpose of analysing EU security provision. It argues that the interventions that the EU has undertaken in the framework of its CSDP can best be explained by a two-stage model. First, the model proposes, any potential EU action is assessed by member state governments against their general security policy dispositions, which are a function of both national and partisan preferences and belief systems. Second, against these broader dispositions, the positions of individual EU governments regarding CSDP actions are shaped by far more parochial assessments of the costs and benefits of these actions. The article presents a conceptual framework and a plausibility probe of this two-stage model. In the conclusion, it promotes a further research agenda for analysing the interaction between governmental dispositions and more narrow governmental interests, and how they inform decisions on CSDP operations.
The third contribution, âThe EUâs Responses to Conflicts in its Wider Neighbourhood: Human or European Security?â by Argyro Kartsonaki and Stefan Wolff posits that the conflicts in the EUâs wider neighbourhood, within and between the âneighboursâ neighboursâ, have been on the EUâs foreign and security policy agenda for some time and therefore offer a useful set of cases to examine rival claims in the existing literature about the extent to which the EUâs foreign and security policy is driven by human or European security imperatives. In order to understand how and why the EU has responded to these conflicts, they present an overview of all conflicts among and between the neighboursâ neighbours, broken down first by sub-region and then by conflict type. They then discuss the EUâs responses to these conflicts and offer a comparative analysis, with a view to describing and explaining existing variation in terms of the EUâs responses and their impact. They findâacross these casesâthat the Unionâs response is most in line with a human security approach in relation to those conflicts where it perceives to have the greatest self-interests at stake.
Gorm Rye Olsenâs contribution, âAfter Afghanistan: The European Union as Security Provider in Africaâ, asks why the area stretching from Senegal over Nigeria to the Horn of Africa/East Africa is considered so important to European security. The area, he argues, is clearly not the ânear abroadâ like the Middle East/North Africa or indeed the former communist countries to the East of the Union. The article launches three arguments aimed at explaining the European Unionâs crisis management policy towards the region, in particular explaining its strong focus on failed states and terrorism. First, it posits, there is a perception among EU decision makers that Europeâs security is threatened by a âSomaliasationâ of African states. The second argument states that EU decision makers are so strongly influenced by French and US security priorities that fighting terrorism becomes a remarkably high priority of the Unionâs Africa policy. Third, EU decision makers share a common notion that immigrant communities in Europe might be inspired by the radicalisation taking place among Muslims in some African countries. Thereby, it is feared that Muslim immigrant communities may contribute to breeding âhomegrownâ terrorists. The article concludes that the perception of a threat stemming from âSomaliasationâ in Africa, the impact of French and US security/anti-terrorism priorities and the fear of âhomegrown terroristsâ together explain the comprehensive crisis management initiatives launched in the region by Brussels in recent years.
Jan Orbie and Karen Del Biondo examine âThe European Unionâs âComprehensive Approachâ in Chad: Securitisation and/or Compartmentalisation?â The EU, they suggest, aims for a comprehensive approach to security in developing countries. As a result, attempts have been made to enhance the nexus between the EUâs security policy and other policy areas, particularly development, humanitarian assistance and democratic governance. This article analyses the EUâs comprehensive approach in the case of Chad, focusing on two questions. First, has the EUâs comprehensive approach been able to supersede the compartmentalisation of the EUâs political system? Second, has it led to the securitisation of non-security policy areas? These questions are answered by investigating the nexus between the EUâs security, democracy, development and humanitarian aid policies in Chad from 2006 onwards. This analysis confirms the compartmentalisation scenario, especially regarding development and humanitarian aid where the relation with security policies was at times openly conflicting. While the EUâs democracy promotion policies are found to be securitised, this is not the case for development and humanitarian aid.
Laura Davies concludes the collection with her piece on âReform, or Business as Usual? EU Security Provision in Complex Contexts: Maliâ. According to the Treaty on European Union, she proposes, the EU is to promote various principles, including peace and justice for human rights violations, in its external action. In fragile contexts, peace and justice are considered fundamental for contributing to reforms that address the causes of conflict and prevent recurrence. Her article draws on field research examining whether and how the EU translated these principles of peace and justice into policy and put them into practice in its response to the crisis in Mali in 2012, particularly by contributing to peace mediation, transitional justice and security sector reform. This article demonstrates the importance of considering practice to understand EU foreign policy and finds that the EU emerged from this crisis a political actor, and although in many ways it promoted reform, in practice it risks supporting business as usual.
This mix of conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions reflects the editorsâ and contributorsâ aspiration of mapping the parameters of a new mid-range theory of the EU as an international security provider. While not yet presenting such a theory in a coherent âpackageâ, taken together the following six contributions identify a number of common elements and new themes in the study of the EU as an international security provider. These include the need to conceive of the environment in which the EU operates as shaped by a security continuum in which internal and external aspects of security combine rather than as a nexus in which these two dimensions can be neatly separated. Related to this is the acknowledgement that operating in such an environment the EU needs to, and to some extent already does, adopt a comprehensive approach that seeks to overcome traditional compartmentalisation of different policy sectors and to replace it with a greater degree of interconnectedness of foreign and security policy with other policy areas, such as development, humanitarian assistance and democratic governance.
As evidenced in the empirical analyses in this collection, the flip-side of such a more comprehensive approach, however, is the securitisation of other policy areas, reflected also in the drivers of EU policy in this area. Underpinning the challenges that the Union and its member states face in formulating and implementing different aspects of the comprehensive approach are the at times competing motivations that exist for specific security provision initiatives, and the EUâs very self-conception of its international security role more generally. This is evident in the way in which human security principles are implemented as part of a particular European approach to international security and how the translating of these principles into policy practice is dependent on how strong a security threat the Union perceiv...