In November 2010 France and Britain embarked on a new era of defence cooperation. Why did they do so? How will it work? And what impact will it have on wider European defence cooperation? In the first in-depth analysis of its kind, the author explores these questions in detail and looks at how Franco-British cooperation can be of benefit to all European states.
The future of NATO is of paramount importance for EU foreign policy. Yet no official EU perspective has been publicly formulated on NATO’s 2010 strategic concept, or how it should complement the EU’s foreign and security policies. This report is a contribution to the debate about NATO’s future, and what that may mean for the EU.
This paper examines the examples of the Civilian Crisis Management Committee (Civcom) and EU Military Committee (EUMC), in order to shed light on the transgovernmental dynamic within the field of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the EU’s cornerstone policy mechanism for crisis response in third countries.
The EU's military planning capacity is in need of a major overhaul. The lack of a permanent operational planning headquarters undermines peacekeeping performance, and more broadly, the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). This Occasional Paper seeks to reconcile the need to address existing deficiencies in military planning and command and control with the general resistance to a permanent military operational headquarters.
The 1999 Helsinki Summit saw EU governments committing to a reform of their military capabilities, better equipping their armies for peacekeeping missions. In this latest EUISS Policy Brief, Daniel Keohane and Charlotte Blommestijn examine just how much progress has been made in the past ten years.
This report follows on from the series of seminars organised in 2008 by the EUISS on the European Security Strategy. It contributes to the debate on policy options generated by the December 2008 European Council, which put forward guidelines for the implementation of the Strategy in the coming years, and looks at how to increase the consistency and coherence of EU external action.
This paper examines the proposals on European defence under discussion during the 2008 French EU Presidency. While Americans and Europeans alike support stronger EU-NATO cooperation, the output has so far been unsatisfactory. The paper examines initiatives for a stronger, more unitary European security structure.
EU governments are gradually coming around to the idea that they need to open up their defence markets. The European Commission is currently proposing new procurement and trade directives aimed at streamlining defence market legislation. The proposed directives would open up the defence market, improve European cooperation on armaments and lead to a more competitive European defence industry.
Cooperative programmes do not have a very positive image in some EU Member States because they have often implied delays, unanticipated costs, and long rounds of negotiations between partnering nations. Participating in a multinational programme without a shared approach and common understanding is bound to lead to problems.
This Occasional Paper explores the issue of European armaments cooperation. Such cooperation between countries has often been difficult. Even so, European governments continue to collaborate on multinational equipment programmes for a number of reasons, and successful multinational programmes have manifold benefits.
Over the last two years, two processes have considerably modified the European strategic landscape: the development of a common security and defence policy within the European Union on the one hand, and accelerated restructuring of defence industries on the other.
Decision-making is the essence of any authority, in terms not only of operational effectiveness but also, fundamentally, of political credibility. The task has become more daunting since, with the restoration of shared rules of cohabitation in Europe and hopefully world-wide, the number of actors in national and international relations, as well as of objective factors that transcend national boundaries, has increased exponentially. ...
The end of the Cold War, the development of new political and military structures, the increased involvement of European forces in United Nations operations which may well involve a wider range of functions; all these developments make it necessary to re-examine the range of possible command arrangements for forces coming from various nations.
As the third of its Chaillot Papers the Institute is pleased to publish this essay by Dr Ian Gambles on European security integration in the 1990s. In a period in which we are having to examine radical restructuring of security in Europe following the historic changes of the last two years, Dr Gambles' paper provides an important reflection on some of the conceptual underpinnings for security analysis in Europe.
I am pleased that the first of the Institute's Chaillot Papers, which are intended to bring work undertaken in the Institute to a wider audience, should be a paper by my deputy, Nicole Gnesotto, on the current debate on security structures for Western Europe. When the Institute for Security Studies was established in July 1990, it took as one of its primary tasks work on the definition of a European security identity.