In 1979 the European Community had no competence in security affairs and defence was a taboo subject in Community affairs.1 Ten years later the European Community was being discussed as a principal institution for the construction of a ‘new European security architecture’. This study seeks to understand how and why this shift in thinking came about and what factors shaped the debate about a European security and defense identity (ESDI) in the period 1979–92. It is a conceptual and historical analysis of the changing debate about a role for the European Community in the domain of security and defense. Finally, it analyses to what extent the debate was reflected in actual policies and institutional development.
KeywordsEuropean Community European Security Police Cooperation International Relation Theory Asylum Policy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.The author is aware that the term ‘cold war’ is problematic. Many historians would argue that the cold war ended long before 1989. However for present purposes, colloquial references to the cold war ending in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall are acceptable. Thus the ‘post-cold war period’ begins in 1989. See Michael Cox, ‘Rethinking the End of the Cold War’, Review of International Studies 20, no. 2 (April 1994); Walter LaFeber, ‘An End to Which Cold War?’, in Michael J. Hogan, ed., The End of the Cold War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
- 4.Karl Marx, ‘The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte’, in Robert C. Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd edn (New York: W.W. Norton, 1978), 595.Google Scholar
- 6.‘America’s allies acquiesced in a hegemonic system that accorded the United States special privileges to act abroad unilaterally to promote U.S. interests. The United States, in turn, condoned its allies’ use of the system to promote their own economic prosperity, even if this happened to come largely at the expense of the United States.’ (Benjamin J. Cohen, Organizing the World’s Money: the Political Economy of International Monetary Relations [London: Macmillan, 1977], 97).Google Scholar
- 7.Much recent discussion has focused on the rigors of trying to define Europe. See William Wallace, The Transformation of Western Europe (London: Pinter, 1990), chapter 2.Google Scholar
- 8.The French term communautaire is most commonly used to refer to the EC’s system of supranational integration as opposed to intergovernmental cooperation. Joseph Weiler, ‘The Community System: the Dual Character of Supranationalism,’ Yearbook of European Law 1 (1981).Google Scholar
- 9.The purpose here is not to analyze the growing definitional debate about security but simply to outline which aspects of security will be considered in the book. The fullest theoretical discussion of security is found in Barry Buzan, People, States & Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, 2nd edn (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991).Google Scholar
- 10.Reimund Seidelmann, ‘WEU and EC-Competition or Cooperation for Western Europe’s Security?’, in Panos Tsakaloyannis, ed., The Reactivation of the Western European Union: the Effects on the EC and its Institutions (Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration, 1985), 62. Seidelmann, in his otherwise excellent analysis confusingly uses the term ‘Europeanism’ interchangeably with ‘europeanization’ and sometimes erroneously refers to NATO as a ‘supranational organization’. See also Reimund Seidelmann, ‘European Security and the European Communities,’ Revue d’intégration européenne/Journal of European Integration VII, no. 2–3 (1984): 221–51.Google Scholar
- 14.Adrian Hyde-Price, European Security Beyond the Cold War: Four Scenarios for the Year 2010 (London: Sage, 1991), 114.Google Scholar
- 15.Robert Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).Google Scholar