Political Accountability: Unsteady Parliamentary Involvement

This chapter takes a look at political accountability for EU peacebuilding activities carried out under the CSDP. It starts with some reflections on parliamentary scrutiny in the domaine réservé, a policy field where parliamentary activity has traditionally been low, but becomes increasingly salient given the growing scope and impact of international policy-making. The chapter then develops a discussion of the fairly limited oversight role of national parliaments regarding EU security and defence. General patterns of parliamentary involvement and particular features of scrutiny related to EU peacebuilding activities are assessed. Afterwards, a thorough analysis of law and practice highlights the enhanced significance of the European Parliament as political forum in the CFSP/CSDP context through a range of formal and informal vehicles which, however, only marginally contribute to parliamentary scrutiny of civilian missions. Lastly, this chapter ascertains the hurdles to interparliamentary cooperation and, in its final section, underscores the significance of effective supranational parliamentary scrutiny of peacebuilding activities in the edifice of Europeanized intergovernmentalism.

Administrative Accountability: Separate but Complementary Fora

This chapter is dedicated to administrative accountability regarding the civilian dimension of EU security and defence. It first decorticates the administrative environment of civilian CSDP. The scrutiny covers institutional, legal, and procedural components (reporting lines and attribution schemes, disciplinary arrangements, etc). The chapter then outlines the small role national authorities play in administrative accountability. Thirdly, the assessment concentrates on the role of the European Ombudsman as a quasi-judicial accountability forum for both individual complaints and overall administrative questions. The evaluation of the Ombudsman’s role is followed by a study of the dual function of the European Court of Auditors, which simultaneously fulfils an auditing and a consultative function. Finally, the chapter discusses the complementarity of the Ombudsman and the European Court of Auditors.

Legal Accountability: Beyond Jurisdictional Reach?

This chapter deals with legal accountability arrangements in the context of EU peacebuilding activities carried out under the CSDP with a special focus on legality, access to justice, and monetary relief. It starts by illustrating why and how judicial actors were kept at a safe distance from EU foreign policy and security matters. The analysis then moves on to sketch out the limited function of national judicial actors in adjudicating matters pertaining to civilian CSDP. Subsequently, the chapter discusses the important role of the CJEU with regard to foreign policy issues (ie the implied and contingent jurisdictional competences of the Court), while concentrating on recent case law pertaining to civilian CSDP. Moreover, it measures the wider jurisdictional field, that is, the division of labour between the CJEU on the one hand, and national courts and the ECtHR on the other. Finally, the chapter draws some conclusions on the evolution and current state of legal accountability in civilian CSDP.

Accountability for EU Peacebuilding Missions

This chapter offers a brief introduction to accountability in the context of the EU’s peacebuilding activities. It first sketches out the institutional and operational scope of EU civilian crisis management (ie peacebuilding activities under the CSDP) and then unveils the central problématique of the book, namely that EU peacebuilding realities no longer correspond to the codified intergovernmental blueprint, so that missions take place in a Europeanized set-up. This de jure–de facto discrepancy, in turn, raises governance issues. From here, the chapter shows, based on insights from peacebuilding practice, that dysfunctional accountability arrangements are not an isolated phenomenon but constitute a common thread across EU civilian crisis management. It argues that the intricate Europeanized governance set-up of civilian CSDP facilitates an accountability deficit. Prior to outlining the structure of the book, the chapter explains how this interdisciplinary study of accountability in civilian CSDP enriches the existing corpus of academic literature.

Civilian Crisis Management in an Accountability Crisis?

This chapter brings all the findings of this volume together. The point of departure was the finding of a de jure–de facto discrepancy regarding peacebuilding activities carried out under the CSDP: while the formal institutional and procedural features of EU peacebuilding are fundamentally intergovernmental, its administrative and operational realities have become Europeanized. This development prompts the question to what extent the transfer of powers by Member States to Brussels-based EU civilian crisis management structures has been matched with the establishment of appropriate accountability mechanisms at the European level. With a view to answering this interrogation, the chapter provides a concluding overview of existing accountability arrangements—political, legal, and administrative in nature—from both a de jure and a de facto perspective. The core finding is that while there is a considerable accountability deficit existing in law, this deficit has incrementally been countered by practice. As a result of this de facto readjustment of accountability, checks and balances are stronger at the EU than at Member State level, and individuals have de facto better—even though not perfect—judicial and administrative redress options at the supranational level. The conclusions further sketch out lessons learned, both for theory and practice, and provide an outlook on accountability in (civilian) CSDP.

Research Design

This chapter explains the methodological choices made in this book on accountability in the multilevel and multi-actor environment of EU security and defence. The inquiry stretches across governance levels, while the focus lies on accountability arrangements involving the Brussels-based crisis management bureaucracy. Rooted in a constitutional perspective on accountability, which establishes a link between accountability and key concepts of constitutional law (eg the rule of law) and thus puts an emphasis on countervailing powers, the analysis covers both law and practice. The sources, hence, include legal and empirical material. The chapter also presents the criteria, according to which the appropriateness of accountability arrangements in the context of civilian crisis management is evaluated.

Accountability: A Complex Concept for a Compound Policy Tool

This chapter unpacks the conceptual and analytical framework of this book on accountability in EU security and defence. Accountability is first delineated as a corollary to holding (public) power and conceptualized as a three-stage mechanism. In a further step, accountability is contextualized in the particular setting of international relations, characterized by executive governance, which is the habitat of EU peacebuilding activities. The chapter then turns to accountability catalysts and inhibitors, namely institutional design, the accountability architecture, and information-sharing modes. Subsequently, the chapter offers a taxonomy of accountability in civilian CSDP by mapping actors and potential fora, both at the strategic and operational level. Prior to outlining the overall research agenda of this study, the chapter addresses analytical and practical challenges for (studying) accountability in the subject area, notably the restrictive information disclosure policy regarding EU security and defence matters.

Unpacking the Civilian Dimension of EU Security and Defence

This chapter introduces the policy context (international security architecture) and the policy area (EU foreign affairs, security, and defence) of civilian CSDP, and moreover provides an in-depth study of the policy tool of EU peacebuilding (civilian crisis management). The chapter explores in particular the delegation dynamics at work, which have produced the distinctive legal, institutional, and operational environment of the CFSP and CSDP. The analysis demonstrates that civilian CSDP is intergovernmental in conception, but Europeanized through practice. Next to unravelling the idiosyncratic governance features of civilian CSDP, the chapter provides a detailed overview of the main actors in EU civilian crisis management. Moreover, peacebuilding activities are demarcated from other external activities of the EU (ie development and AFSJ activities). The chapter closes with legal arguments and pragmatic considerations that highlight the importance of accountability in EU civilian crisis management.