Article

Genesis of the Crisis Response Civil Component in the European Union: Parameters, Problems, and Interaction with Russia

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

The article features the civil component of the crisis response in the European Union, as well as the Russian role in its development. With the new security threats and challenges, the civilian instruments necessary for the post-conflict society stabilization are becoming increasingly important. The research was based on the universal evolutionism and included such methods as conceptual and structural modeling, comparative analysis, and historical approach. The methods made it possible to reveal the civil component within the crisis management system of the European Union. The civil component unites and coordinates European national resources, creates platforms and opportunities for experience exchange, increases the motivation and professionalism of experts, etc. The author also focused on the interaction between the European Union and the Russian Federation in this sphere. The key parameters for developing the civil dimension of crisis response include two points: (1) the political will to implement the civilian component of security policy by the European Union institutions and member states, (2) the will to solve the problem of human resources. For the current and foreseeable Russian-European relations, the cooperation potential of the civilian component of crisis response is not included in the security policy. The research makes a significant contribution to the study of the European Union development problems, genesis and development parameters of the civil missions, and the Russian-European dialogue.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
This article explores the issues faced by the EU in developing its international roles post-Brexit, using a combination of discursive analysis and role theory to investigate the development and performance of roles in a number of linked arenas. Central to this analysis is the assumption that whatever form Brexit takes, the EU and the UK will remain closely entangled, and thus that the post-Brexit role assumed by the UK will shape the evolution of EU external action. But a key task for analysis is to place the impact of Brexit into the array of wider forces affecting EU external action, and this is a key aim of the article. The article begins by exploring the discourses of globalism characteristic of UK and EU foreign policies, as focused by the debates about ‘global Britain’ and EU global strategy since 2015. It then introduces a simple framework for considering the roles conceived and performed by the EU, and their potential impact in the post-Brexit world. The article then considers three areas of EU external action, and the ways in which they might be shaped by a post-Brexit world: trade and development, transatlantic relations and security and defence policy. The conclusion discusses the implications of the cases, especially in relation to the conversion of discursive role constructs into performable roles—a problem central to EU external action—and concludes that whilst the impact of Brexit will be significant, it is likely to be less fundamental than the impact of the challenges faced by the EU in the global arena more broadly.
Article
Full-text available
This article appraises effectiveness in operational conflict prevention. By focusing on the European Union Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) in Kosovo, it assesses the most extensive civilian Common Security and Defence Policy mission so far. Contrary to prevailing assessments, it posits that EULEX, despite its challenges and deficiencies, presents positive contributions to operational conflict prevention, and peace-building in general. This is uncovered through structured focused analysis according to effectiveness criteria and success indicators that allow for identification of and distinction between different types and levels of effectiveness, considering both means applied and ends achieved. In so doing, the article contributes to the general literature on operational conflict prevention and on the specific case of Kosovo. The empirical analysis is based on fieldwork and semi-structured interviews with EU personnel, governmental and non-governmental actors in Kosovo, and independent observers.
Article
The author explores the key aspects of EU‟s crisis response strategy evolution. Special attention is paid to the EU‟s policy countering hybrid threats and promoting cyber security, informationcommunication technology, mediation. The article shows that the EU‟s strategy aimed at creation of modern information-communication infrastructure and digital platforms in different regions of the world significantly broaden the technical capacity of the EU to monitor crisis situations, to take measures for an early prevention of conflicts and to timely forecast potential armed conflicts and optimal parameters of the EU‟s technical assistance for the purpose of development and post-conflict reconstruction of conflict-affected states. The author underlines that the modernization of the EU‟s crisis prevention strategy is driven by the new challenges to global and European security as well as by a profound transformation of modern international relations. Cooperation of the EU and the UN in the sphere of peacekeeping and the EU‟s military operation in the framework of the crisis management strategy has also been analyzed. Specific details of the EU‟s concept of “complex approach” to the crisis prevention strategy have been equally presented in the paper.
Article
The article is devoted to the analysis of the evolution, nature and content of Russia-EU political relations, formally established by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) of 1994. The paradigm of building a united Europe and a common European security space in line with overcoming post-bipolar confrontation and the emergence of post-Soviet Russia as well as the European Union, established in 1992, as new actors in international arena became the basis for their cooperative relations, which was built towards strategic partnership. It was strengthened at the turn of the 2000s, including on the basis of mutual strategies of relations, when Russia’s “European choice” was declared and the EU’s “new dynamics” in security and defense dimension were initiated. However, the NATO-centric model of European security and the policy of expanding Euro-Atlantic institutions to the East created a potential for conflict, and Russia-EU cooperation entered a phase of a latent crisis, especially as a result of differing interests in the so-called common neighborhood. Attempts at a new strategic start by the adoption of Russia-EU Roadmaps on the four common spaces and by planning the negotiations on a new basic agreement failed to overcome fundamental disagreements and contradictions. The Ukrainian conflict became the culmination of the Russian-European crisis and fundamentally changed the direction and content of Russia — EU relations. The defining of the future strategy of relations is becoming increasingly acute, which is considered in the article as a challenge of strategic choice for the parties. The author substantiates the prospect of overcoming the “new normality”, which is boils down to maintaining a controlled mutual deterrence, although it does not exclude the option of terminating the Russia-EU legal relations (“breakesit”).
Article
To preclude a severely damaged or more likely dissolved NATO, NATO Europe would need the capabilities to fight offensively and to win.
Article
How does the European Union (EU) recruit troops and police to serve in EU peacekeeping missions? This article suggests that pivotal EU member states and EU officials make strategic use of the social and institutional networks within which they are embedded to bargain reluctant states into providing these forces. These networks offer information on deployment preferences, facilitate side-payments and issue-linkages, and provide for credible commitments. EU operations are consequently not necessarily dependent on intra-EU preference convergence—as is often suggested in the existing literature. Rather, EU force recruitment hinges on highly proactive EU actors, which use social and institutional ties to negotiate fellow states into serving in an EU missions.
Article
European states may no longer expect inter-state violence, but they do expect complex threats em-anating from storms, epidemics, terror attacks and earthquakes. The EU has answered these threatsthrough the rapid and far-reaching institutionalization of European security cooperation. However,member states hesitate to use their common capacities. While both intergovernmental and con-structivist approaches treat this pattern as evidence of weak integration and as unimportant tothe European security community, we examine this cooperation through the lens of practice theoryand reveal how the growth of EU capacities is fully compatible with a critical and cautious ap-proach to activating these resources in the everyday work of national officials. Using unique em-pirical data retrieved through participant observation in thefirst multisectoral crisis managementexercise held by the EU, thefindings of this analysis sketch the contours of a new type of securitycommunity.
Article
This article aims at analysing the strengths and shortfalls of the European Union (EU) Civilian Crisis Management (CCM) system after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The Treaty introduced a number of important innovations at the strategic, institutional and operational lEvel that have the potential to produce a significant impact on the way in which the EU addresses today's complex crises and defines its role in the international security environment. The article starts out with a review of the origin and evolution of the EU as a civilian crisis manager actor, with a view to point out the main steps, concrete achiEvements and remaining gaps on the Eve of the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. The second part focuses on the assessment of the Lisbon Treaty's innovations in the CCM system in terms of institutions, mechanisms and capabilities. The following section is dedicated to the evaluation of the experience on the ground, conducted through the identification of the main trends of CCM after Lisbon. The analysis relies on the study of the civilian missions launched by the EU since 2012: EUCAP Sahel Niger, EUCAP Nestor, EUAVSEC South Sudan and, more recently, EUBAM Libya, EUCAP Sahel Mali and EUAM Ukraine. The last part offers some policy recommendations for the EU in order to improve its performance in the field of CCM through improved strategies, institutional set-up, operational planning and capability dEvelopment.
Article
Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MGIMO University), 76, Vernadskogo Prosp., Moscow 119454, Russian Federation; Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences, 11-3B, Mokhovaya Str., Moscow 125993, Russian Federation. Today, the European Union is in a systemic crisis. The main challenges are well known: Euro crisis underlined by insufficient competitiveness of the EU economy; migration crisis, which is feeding Euroscepticism and ultra-right radicalism; Brexit referendum that highlighted all the defects of the EU political system, primarily those related to the ideology of integration and identity issues. These external shocks have provoked a systemic crisis because, over the last ten years, the institutional and political system of the EU has considerably degraded. This article attempts to identify key negative trends in the development of this system which took place in the past decade: 1) the erosion of solidarity and the collapse of the "inevitable" integration ideology; 2) an increasing heterogeneity within the EU as a result of enlargement that limited potential of Europeanization; 3) reinforcement of the intergovernmental method of governance to the prejudice of a communitarian one; 4) an increasing gap between the image of the EU as an "omnipotent bureaucracy", the scope of tasks, and modest resources; 5) growing legitimacy deficit and 6) the problem of leadership. On this basis, the paper provides a critical analysis of possible transformation scenarios for the institutional and political system of the European Union, an assessment of their probability, ensuing risks and opportunities. The paper concludes that the most possible option is a further development of various elements of flexible integration, which would transform the EU into a "core and periphery" system. Flexibility would allow combining the federalization of the EU core, and the current (oreven lower) level of integration for those countries who do not want or cannot take new obligations.
Article
The police restructuring efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina driven by the international community, using in particular the leverage of European integration, attempted to achieve a reform that would transform a very fragmented police system into a de-politicized single structure and ended in the signing of a rather weak political agreement. The main reason why the process proved to be so difficult was that police restructuring touched upon the fundamentals of a delicate ethno-political power-sharing model in a post-conflict situation. But also, the approach chosen by the international community had serious deficiencies as the international community was far from speaking with one voice, thereby limiting its leverage.
Article
It remains to be seen whether the rule of law and robust institutions can be built in Kosovo. The answer will show whether a common EU (and transatlantic) foreign policy is possible in the diffuse post–Cold War world.
Article
The European Union (EU) is commonly, and vaguely, labelled as a sui generis foreign policy actor. The European Security Strategy (2003) advances, in an imprecise manner, the possible use of ‘robust’ responses to international challenges, when needed. The military dimension of the EU has to be found in its evolving but still incipient Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)/European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Since the launch of ESDP and its first missions in 2003, the EU has been able to conduct a noticeable progress on two fronts. On the one hand, it enhances internal capabilities for crisis management; on the other hand, it favours the principle of participation of third countries in missions. The present analysis considers EU international military cooperation in a strategic neighbourhood: Eastern Europe. We take into account the EU necessity to rely on relevant non-EU players to launch missions. We argue that ESDP missions' success depends not only on these external actors, namely on the consideration of power gaps, but also on domestic EU constraints. We explore the causes of poor cooperation with Russia on ESDP and the perspectives for crisis management in Europe. Considering ESDP activities in Eastern Europe, we conclude that the balance between civilian and military tools is not adequate to engage more seriously with Russia towards the stabilisation of the ‘common’ neighbourhood.
Article
Since the end of the Cold War, the value of civilians in postconflict stabilization has become increasingly clear. As a result, beginning in 2003, the European Union began deploying civilian missions under the auspices of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Many experts believe that the European Union has a special role to play in civilian work around the world. Some have argued that the multidimensional nature of the EU makes it inherently better suited for civilian work when compared with NATO, whose mission has historically been military in nature. Others argue that, even if NATO were able to undertake civilian work in crisis zones, the EU would still have a comparative advantage, given that it will never develop military capabilities on par with NATO. From this perspective, encouraging the EU's civilian capabilities will also help ensure complementarity between the two organizations and thereby, perhaps, better overall transatlantic security cooperation. But how well suited is the EU, in reality, to civilian work? What does the empirical record show? What does the future look like? This report takes up these and related issues. Intended primarily for a U.S. policy audience, it offers a general overview and assessment of the EU's civilian operations to date, as well as a more in-depth look at the two missions in which the EU has worked alongside NATO: Afghanistan and Kosovo. These two missions are also the EU's most ambitious civilian missions and are useful for comparison, since one is widely viewed as underperforming (the EU Police Mission in Afghanistan [EUPOL Afghanistan]), while the other could still succeed (the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo [EULEX Kosovo]). This report offers a preliminary assessment of what the EU has done so far in the civilian field, with an eye to improving the planning and coordination of U.S.-EU efforts, within NATO and beyond.
Methodological aspects in the study of foreign policy and global role of the European Union
  • M V Strezhneva
The EU’s comprehensive approach to crisis management
  • N Pirozzi
Pirozzi N. The EU's comprehensive approach to crisis management. Brussels, 2013, 27.
To the vital issues: Europe and the modern world
  • A A Gromyko
Foreign policy of the European Union in the post-Lisbon period
  • O Potemkina
  • Yu
Formation of new instruments and mechanisms of the CSDP
  • D A Danilov
Union in the system of international security: new instruments of crisis settlement
  • O O Novikova
  • European
EU civilian crisis management in 2030: a test-run of scenario-based planning
  • F Schimmel
Schimmel F. EU civilian crisis management in 2030: a test-run of scenario-based planning. Berlin: Forschungsinstitut der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, 2021, 10.
Der Pragmatismus aller Beteiligten ebnete den Weg für den Aufbau rechtsstaatlicher Strukturen im Kosovo
  • E Haber
  • Primat
  • Stabilität
Haber E. Primat der Stabilität. Der Pragmatismus aller Beteiligten ebnete den Weg für den Aufbau rechtsstaatlicher Strukturen im Kosovo. Internationale Politik, 2009, 64(7-8): 83-89.
Towards an EU Peacebuilding Strategy? European Parliament
  • C Major
  • C Mölling
Major C., Mölling C. Towards an EU Peacebuilding Strategy? European Parliament, 2010. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede260410peacebuildingstrategy_/sede260410peacebuildingstrategy_en.pdf (accessed 31 Mar 2022).
Military policy of the European Union
  • V V Zhurkin
A Global Strategy for European Union's foreign and security policy
  • N K Arbatova
  • T N Andreeva
  • V I Vasiliev
  • K V Voronov
  • K P Zueva
  • A M Kokeev
  • P S Sokolova
  • P P Timofeev
  • M V Khorolskaya
  • E G Cherkasova
  • E V Shumitskaya
Upgrading Europe’s civilian crisis management - a strategic planning process in ten steps
  • C Mölling
  • F Schimmel
Mölling C., Schimmel F. Upgrading Europe's civilian crisis management -a strategic planning process in ten steps. DGAP Policy Brief, (28). Berlin: Forschungsinstitut der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, 2020. URL: https://nbn-resolving. org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-71287-8 (accessed 31 Mar 2022).
Европа и современный мир. М.-СПб.: Нестор-История, 2017. 232 с. Gromyko A. A. To the vital issues: Europe and the modern world
  • А А Громыко
  • Насущном
Громыко А. А. О насущном: Европа и современный мир. М.-СПб.: Нестор-История, 2017. 232 с. Gromyko A. A. To the vital issues: Europe and the modern world. Moscow-St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2017, 232. (In Russ.)
Institutional and political development of the European Union: systemic crisis and transformation options. World Economy and International Relations
  • Н Ю Кавешников
Кавешников Н. Ю. Институционально-политическое развитие ЕС: кризис и варианты трансформации. Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2017. Т. 61. № 5. С. 14-24. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-5-14-24 Kaveshnikov N. Yu. Institutional and political development of the European Union: systemic crisis and transformation options. World Economy and International Relations, 2017, 61(5): 14-24. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/ 0131-2227-2017-61-5-14-24
Методологические аспекты в изучении внешней политики и глобальной роли Европейского союза. Полис. Политические исследования
  • М В Стрежнева
Стрежнева М. В. Методологические аспекты в изучении внешней политики и глобальной роли Европейского союза. Полис. Политические исследования. 2017. № 6. С. 25-42. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.06.03 Strezhneva M. V. Methodological aspects in the study of foreign policy and global role of the European Union. Polis. Political Studies, 2017, (6): 25-42. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.06.03
Стратегическая автономия ЕС и перспективы сотрудничества с Россией. М.: Весь мир, 2020. 368 с
  • Н К Арбатова
  • Т Н Андреева
  • Ф А Басов
  • В И Васильев
  • К В Воронов
  • К П Зуева
  • А М Кокеев
  • М С Павлова
  • П С Соколова
  • П П Тимофеев
  • Е Г Черкасова
  • Е В Шумицкая
  • М В Хорольская
  • N K Arbatova
  • T N Andreeva
  • F A Basov
  • V I Vasilev
  • K V Voronov
  • K P Zueva
  • A M Kokeev
  • M S Pavlova
  • P S Sokolova
  • P P Timofeev
  • E G Cherkasova
  • E V Shumitskaya
  • M Khorolskaya
Арбатова Н. К., Андреева Т. Н., Басов Ф. А., Васильев В. И., Воронов К. В., Зуева К. П., Кокеев А. М., Павлова М. С., Соколова П. С., Тимофеев П. П., Черкасова Е. Г., Шумицкая Е. В., Хорольская М. В. Стратегическая автономия ЕС и перспективы сотрудничества с Россией. М.: Весь мир, 2020. 368 с. Arbatova N. K., Andreeva T. N., Basov F. A., Vasilev V. I., Voronov K. V., Zueva K. P., Kokeev A. M., Pavlova M. S., Sokolova P. S., Timofeev P. P., Cherkasova E. G., Shumitskaya E. V., Khorolskaya M. V. Strategic autonomy of the EU and prospects for cooperation with Russia. Moscow: Ves mir, 2020, 368. (In Russ.)
Внешняя политика Европейского союза в постлиссабонский период. Современная Европа. 2017. № 5. С. 149-151. Potemkina O. Yu. Foreign policy of the European Union in the post-Lisbon period
  • О Ю Потемкина
Потемкина О. Ю. Внешняя политика Европейского союза в постлиссабонский период. Современная Европа. 2017. № 5. С. 149-151. Potemkina O. Yu. Foreign policy of the European Union in the post-Lisbon period. Sovremennaya Yevropa, 2017, (5): 149-151. (In Russ.)
Междунар. отношения, 2014. 256 с. Zhurkin V. V. Military policy of the European Union
  • В В Журкин
  • М Военная Политика Евросоюза
Журкин В. В. Военная политика Евросоюза. М.: Междунар. отношения, 2014. 256 с. Zhurkin V. V. Military policy of the European Union. Moscow: Mezhdunar. otnosheniia, 2014, 256. (In Russ.)
Станет ли Европейский союз мировым центром силы? Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2020. Т. 64. № 6. С. 51-65
  • Н К Арбатова
Арбатова Н. К. Станет ли Европейский союз мировым центром силы? Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2020. Т. 64. № 6. С. 51-65. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-6-51-65 Arbatova N. K. Will European Union become a global power center? World Economy and International Relations, 2020, 64(6): 51-65. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-6-51-65
  • Н К Арбатова
  • Т Н Андреева
  • В И Васильев
  • К В Воронов
  • К П Зуева
  • А М Кокеев
  • П С Соколова
  • П П Тимофеев
  • М В Хорольская
  • Е Г Черкасова
Арбатова Н. К., Андреева Т. Н., Васильев В. И., Воронов К. В., Зуева К. П., Кокеев А. М., Соколова П. С., Тимофеев П. П., Хорольская М. В., Черкасова Е. Г., Шумицкая Е. В. Глобальная стратегия безопасности ЕС 2016. М.: ИМЭМО РАН, 2017. 33 с. https://doi.org/10.20542/978-5-9535-0505-5
Формирование новых инструментов и механизмов ОПБО. Европейский Союз: факты и комментарии
  • Д А Данилов
Данилов Д. А. Формирование новых инструментов и механизмов ОПБО. Европейский Союз: факты и комментарии. 2018. № 93. С. 74-78. Danilov D. A. Formation of new instruments and mechanisms of the CSDP. European Union: facts and comments, 2018, (93): 74-78. (In Russ.)
Европейский Союз в системе международной безопасности: новые инструменты кризисного урегулирования. Полис. Политические исследования. 2008. № 4. С. 174-185. Novikova O. O. European Union in the system of international security: new instruments of crisis settlement
  • О О Новикова
Новикова О. О. Европейский Союз в системе международной безопасности: новые инструменты кризисного урегулирования. Полис. Политические исследования. 2008. № 4. С. 174-185. Novikova O. O. European Union in the system of international security: new instruments of crisis settlement. Polis. Political Studies, 2008, (4): 174-185. (In Russ.)
Политические отношения Россия -ЕС: эволюция и перспективы. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета
  • Д А Данилов
Данилов Д. А. Политические отношения Россия -ЕС: эволюция и перспективы. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Международные отношения. 2021. Т. 14. № 2. С. 121-138. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2021.201
Exploring Europe’s capability requirements for 2035 and beyond
  • M Kepe
  • J Black
  • J Melling
  • J Plumridge