Body of Europe and Malignant Nationalism: A Pathology of the Balkans in European Security Discourse

Geopolitics ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 117-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Luoma-aho
Author(s):  
Ruth Hanau Santini

This paper looks at the qualitative change in the foreign policy discourse by the European Union towards the Middle East, as well as the EU’s overall degree of consistency between words and deeds. By looking at European Council Conclusions as well as General Affairs Council conclusions, it will be argued that on a discursive level the Union has taken stock of the emergence of new threats to its security, and has started shifting its attention from state failure and regional conflicts to the threats posed by terrorism and non-conventional proliferation. Secondly, by differentiating among three kinds of coherence, it will be shown that the main source of incoherence in the Union external action in the Middle East is not to be found in its institutional or horizontal dimensions, but in its vertical level, that is between the Union and member states. Examples will be provided in order to substantiate an overall claim: the EU security discourse might have changed; its policies however remain driven by the difficult balancing exercise between Brussels and national capitals.   Full text available at: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v3i2.184


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (27) ◽  
pp. 91-114
Author(s):  
Luis Alexander Montero Moncada ◽  
Maria Paula Velandia García

In this article, we examine the elements that are being developed by NATO and Russia in a strategic competition in Europe. Having analysed these elements, each sub-system, as described by the Realist Theory of International Relations, is facing major changes in today’s world politics. From Northern Europe to the Balkans and the Black Sea region, the analysis focuses on areas of tension that could potentially become problematic for the interaction between the two actors. Besides, the Baltic region is explained further due to its continuous activity regarding either hybrid or tradition war tactics. Finally, we draw a parallel between NATO, the EU and the USA as main actors in European Security and how the latter has been changing drastically since Donald Trump took office. We conclude by analysing potential risks, scenarios and conflicts between NATO and Russia in short range projections.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1-2016) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Tobias Heinze ◽  
Sebastian Illigens Sebastian Illigens ◽  
Michael Pollok

Determining European territory is a delicate endeavor. A definite borderline is hard to identify. Instead, European security discourse spans a space with conditional qualities: open for some, impervious for many. Referring to Judith Butler's theory, this constribution’s aim is to disclose performative forces that create corresponding subject-categories. Particularly, expert-driven legislation on migration and the militarization of the security discourse is relevant. It is possible to reconstruct a multidimensional matrix of intelligibility. For this, relevant policy documents are analyzed by conducting a qualitative content analysis. This contribution allows to critically question foundational dimensions of European identity constituted by regulatory and exclusive practices at the borders.


2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 178-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muriel Asseburg ◽  
Ronja Kempin

In 2003, the EU declared its civilian and military crisis management instruments ready for deployment. Since then, EU member states have demonstrated their capability to act as a global security player. They have deployed civil missions and military operations to Sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, the Eastern neighbourhood, the Near and Middle East, and even to Asia. Th ese engagements have encompassed a variety of approaches and tools to crisis management and stabilisation, ranging from the training of security forces and the support for the rule of law, to the provision of a military or civilian presence, to safeguard elections or to monitor border arrangements and ceasefire agreements, to the fight against piracy or other forms of organised crime. Altogether, by the end of 2009, the EU had conducted 23 missions and operations under the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The EU has made considerable progress on its way to becoming a global security actor. However, case studies show that many ESDP engagements face substantial shortcomings – chief among them the lack of long-term, strategic planning for future deployments, a binding and institutionalised “lessons learned” process as well as a consistent follow-up by member states and EU institutions involved.


Author(s):  
Maxime H. A. Larivé

This empirical and historical analysis of the Western European Union (WEU), an intergovernmental defense organization, contributes to the broader understanding of the construction and integration of European security and defense policy. The WEU was established in 1954 by the Modified Brussels Treaty after the failure of the European Defense Community and at the time of the construction of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Over its lifetime, the WEU was confronted by two major trends: the centrality of collective defense agreement providing security on the European continent enforced by NATO and the construction of a European security and defense policy within the broad integration process of the European Union (EU). The WEU provided a platform for Western European powers, particularly France, the United Kingdom, and Germany, to engage in the construction of a European defense. Historically, these countries had diverging visions ranging from an autonomous force to one that should remain under the NATO auspice. The end of the Cold War accelerated the transfer of the WEU mission to the EU, but the crises in the Gulf region and in the Balkans in 1990s led to a period of activity for the WEU. The institutionalization of the EU, beginning with the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, accelerated the construction of a European defense and security policy within EU structures. The transfer from the WEU to the EU began in the late 1990s and the WEU was dissolved in 2011.


Author(s):  
Edoardo Baldaro ◽  
Irene Costantini

Abstract The article takes fragility and resilience as distinct policy paradigms, and proposes a structured, focused comparison of how they informed and changed the EU approach to conflict and crisis management in time. The first section provides a cumulative synthesis of the debate on fragility and resilience in the international and European security discourse and practice on the background of which their comparison is built. By analysing the founding documents respectively endorsing fragility and resilience in the European context, namely the 2003 European Security Strategy and the 2016 European Union Global Strategy in addition to the existing literature on these topics, the two paradigms are examined in terms of (1) what understanding of the international system they advance; (2) where they identify the locus of the threat; (3) which role they attribute to the international community (4) and the type of solutions they proposed. In accordance with our results, we conclude that the two paradigms are not in competition, since they emerged from and reflected a contingent shift in global and local environments. Moreover, rather than providing a novel lens to better look at conflict and crisis situation, resilience is found to offer more insights into the EU's perception of its role in these contexts.


Survival ◽  
1972 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 114-117
Author(s):  
Leo Mates

1991 ◽  
Vol 136 (3) ◽  
pp. 29-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niculae Constantin Spiroiu

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document