The EU Battlegroups (BGs) reached full operational capability on 1 January 2007. However, they have never been deployed since, raising serious doubts about the viability of the overall initiative. This brief examines how, if the EU member states really want the Battlegroups to be Europe’s flagship military rapid response tool, they may have to address the challenges that continue to plague the BGs’ credibility and effectiveness.
This report is based on a conference on European defence jointly organised by the EUISS and King’s College London in September. It focuses on CSDP with a view to informing official debates leading up to the upcoming European Council meeting in December. In particular, the report stresses the importance of EU member states strengthening their political and financial commitment to CSDP, as well as the key role of the EU institutions in fostering cooperation and coordination.
A decade after the UN and the EU signed a Joint Declaration on UN-EU Cooperation in Crisis Management, this brief examines the achievements and obstacles faced by the two organisations in this field. With the December 2013 European Council on defence looming, what opportunities exist to further enhance this partnership?
What sort of armed forces are Europeans likely to have (and need) by 2025? How might Europeans better organise themselves to take part in the new global competition for wealth, influence and power? This report seeks to place European military capabilities in a broader perspective and demonstrate how the only way to safeguard common ‘strategic interests’ and counter potential risks is to do more together.
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.