Abstract
For many observers the concept of a Community security identity began with the first proposals put forth by member states in the year-long approach to the Maastricht negotiations. However, as this study has demonstrated, such an identity had a long and chequered past and it came to Maastricht with a heavy weight of historical and political baggage.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Treaty on European Union (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1992) [Hereafter TEU], Title I, Article A, 7.
For a discussion of Treaty passerelles see, European Parliament, DG for Research,‘The Prospects for a Foreign and Security Policy of the “European Union” After Maastricht,’ working papers, October 1992, 5.
‘Embattled Member States Foresee Summit Truce’, The Guardian, 26 November 1991.
‘Greece Threatens to Veto Treaty’, Financial Times, 29 November 1991.
TEU, ‘Declaration on Asylum’ and ‘Declaration on Police Cooperation’, 247–8; see also Brewin and McAllister, 1992, 354.
‘WEU to Study Defence Corps’, Financial Times, 6 February 1992.
‘UK Proposes Europe Defense Buildup’, International Herald Tribune, 15 May 1992; ‘New Corps No Threat To NATO Says Rühe’, The Independent, 15 May 1992.
‘Danish Opposition Offers Compromise Plan’, Financial Times, 12–13 September 1992.
Strategic Survey 1993–1994 (London: Brassey’s for IISS, 1994), 109.
Edouard Balladur, ‘La France et le nouvel ordre planétaire’, Le Figaro, 3 February 1992, cited in Schmidt, French, 342.
‘Europe’s Drive to Union is Irreversible’, International Herald Tribune, 28 July 1992.
‘Final Communiqué, Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council’, Oslo, 4 June 1992, para 7, NATO Review (June 1992): 31.
‘Petersberg Declaration’, Europe Documents, 23 June 1992, no. 1787, part I, pt 8.
Ibid., part II, pt. 7.
The protocol of membership was signed on 20 November 1992. ‘Greece Welcomed into Revived WEU’, Financial Times, 20 November 1992.
These processes were confirmed in December 1992. NATO Review 41, no. 1 (1993): 32.
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania were represented. See Europe Documents, 23 June 1992, no. 1787. For the much more extensive membership of NACC see ‘Declaration and Working Programme of the “North Atlantic Cooperation Council” Meeting in Brussels’, Europe Documents, 12 March 1992, no. 1765.
The following applications have been presented: Turkey (April 1987); Austria (July 1989); Cyprus (July 1990); Malta (July 1990); Sweden (July 1991); Finland (March 1992); and Switzerland (May 1992). For a discussion of individual neutrality policies see Sheila Harden, ed., Neutral States and the European Community (London: Brassey’s, 1994).
Comments by Albert Reynolds, Irish Times, 16 June 1992, cited in Surya Subedi, ‘Neutrality in a Changing World: European Neutral States and the European Community’, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 42 (1993): 258. Subedi provides a compelling case for the view that the provisions of the Treaty on European Union do not conflict with the neutrality of aspiring applicants.
‘Austria Told Conditions of Entry’, The Guardian, 1 August 1991.
‘swedish PM No Thatcher on EC’, The Guardian, 3 March 1992.
For a discussion of Swiss neutrality see Alice Landau, ‘swiss Neutrality: Burgeoning Policy or Obstinate Continuity?’, Studia Diplomatica 40, no. 6 (1993) 59–81.
Gunther Burghardt, ‘The Future for a European Foreign and Security Policy’, Sussex European Institute working papers no. 2 (Brighton: Sussex European Institute, 1993): 4.
See remarks by Austrian President Thomas Kestril in Europe, 16 December 1992, no. 5880.
In July 1992 WEU ministers approved an embargo monitoring operation in the Adriatic. NATO soon followed with its own operation. The political rivalry behind this duplication was resolved in June 1993 when the North Atlantic Council and the Council of the WEU approved a combined NATO-WEU operation and appointed a single commander to head the task force. See ‘Europe Bares its Claws’, Financial Times, 15 July 1992; ‘Nato to enforce Yugoslav Embargo’, Financial Times, 22 November 1992.
‘The French Aside, Maastricht was Already Tumbling’, International Herald Tribune, 21 September 1992.
‘Bangemann Accuses French of Anti-German Sentiment’, Financial Times, 3 September 1992.
Copyright information
© 1997 Andrew Wyatt-Walter
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wyatt-Walter, H. (1997). Maastricht and the Grand Compromise. In: The European Community and the Security Dilemma, 1979–92. St Antony’s Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-14245-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-14245-3_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-14247-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-14245-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)