Abstract
In many respects, CSDP is an internal and external manifestation of European integration. It reflects member states’ values and preferences as well as national and European interests. In addition, CSDP was established by the members to complete and improve EU foreign policy — and to enhance security around and beyond the union’s borders. An unstable world threatens the interests and values of the EU and its member states. In evaluating CSDP, it is impossible to isolate its effects from EU foreign policy — of which CSDP is a critical instrument.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Gross, E. (2009) Europeanization of National Foreign Policies: Continuity and Change in European Crisis Management (London: Palgrave Macmillan), p. ix.
Ibid., p. 2.
These data draw from Grevi, G. et al. (2009) European Security and Defense Policy: The First Ten Years (Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies), p. 414. It is worth remembering that the Central and Eastern European countries in the union joined in either 2005 or 2007.
Ibid.
For further analysis, see Flanagan. S. (2011) A Diminishing Transatlantic Partnership? Impact of the Financial Crisis on European Defense and Foreign Assistance Capabilities (Washington: CSIS) and Howorth, J. (2011) ‘The EU’s Security and Defense Policy: Towards a Strategic Approach’ in C. Hill and M. Smith (eds) International Relations of the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 198–225. Howorth demonstrates that the average defense expenditures of the sixteen lowest spenders among the EU member states (who account for 77 percent of the EU budget) amounts to just one-half of Vietnam’s defense budget (see Howorth, p. 219).
Korski, D. and R. Gowan, (2009) Can the EU Rebuild Failing States? A Review of Europe’s Civilian Capabilities (Cambridge: European Council on Foreign Relations), p. 49.
Ibid.
For an analysis of Britain in CSDP in the early years see Penksa, S.E. and W. L. Mason (2003) ‘EU Security Cooperation and Transatlantic Relations,’ Nordic Journal of Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 38, no. 3, 270–272
Nicoll, A. (2009) ‘Europe’s Rapid-Response Forces: Use Them or Lose Them,’ Strategic Comments (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies), vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 1–2
Verlin Laatikainen, K. and K.E. Smith (2006) The European Union at the United Nations: Intersecting Multilateralisms (London: Palgrave Macmillan), p. 13.
Ibid.
Ibid.
In writing this section, Roy Ginsberg acknowledged with his appreciation two scholars — Susan E. Penksa and Erica de Wet — for their work on legal and political impact of CSDP operations in BiH and Kosovo on which this section draws. See Penksa, S.E. (2010) ‘Security Governance, Complex Peace Support Operations, and the Blurring of Civil-Military Tasks’ in C. Daase and C. Friesendorf (eds) Rethinking Security Governance: The Problems of Unintended Consequences (London: Routledge), pp. 39–61; and de Wet, E. (January 2009) ‘The Governance of Kosovo: Security Council Resolution 1244 and the Establishment and Functioning of EULEX,’ The American Journal of International Law, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 80–92.
General Jones in Yost, D.S. (2010) ‘Nato’s Evolving Purposes and the Next Strategic Concept,’ International Affairs, vol. 86, pp. 489–422; Yost, D. S. Defense College, p. 2
The author wishes to acknowledge the work of and correspondences with Prof. David Yost in compiling the data used in this chronology of EU-NATO developments. Yost’s study of NATO relations with international organizations helped the author conceptualize the study of EU relations with international organizations. See Yost, D.S. (2007) NATO and International Organizations (Rome: NATO Defense College).
This section draws on data and analysis from Hughes, J. (ed.) (2010) EU Conflict Management (London: Routledge); Gross, E. (2009) Europeanization of National Foreign Policy: Continuity and Change in European Crisis Management (London: Palgrave Macmillan); Penksa, S.E. (2010) ‘Security Cooperation, Complex Peace Support Operations, and the Blurring of Civil-Military Tasks’ in C. Daase and C. Friesendorf (eds) Rethinking Security Governance: The Problems of Unintended Consequences (London: Routledge); and Flessenkemper, T. (2008) ‘ESDP: An Implementation Perspective’ in M. Merlingen and R. Ostrauskaite, European Union Peacebuilding and Policing (London: Routledge).
Biscop, S. and J. Coelmont (2011) ‘A Strategy for CSDP’, Studia Diplomatica, vol. LXIV, no. 1, p. 16.
Ibid.
For an analysis of the impact of the EU mission in Georgia, see Weisensee, J. (2010) Measuring European Foreign Policy Impact: The EU and the Georgia Crisis of 2008 (Brugges: College of Europe EU Diplomatic Papers Series).
Hamilton, D. (2009) Alliance Reborn: An Atlantic Compact for the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: Center for Transatlantic Relations) and Hamilton, D. and F. Burwell (2009) Shoulder to Shoulder: Forging a Strategic U.S.-EU Partnership (Washington: Center for Transatlantic Relations).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2012 Roy H. Ginsberg and Susan E. Penksa
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ginsberg, R.H., Penksa, S.E. (2012). The Impact on International Security Providers. In: The European Union in Global Security. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230367524_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230367524_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-32047-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-36752-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)