Skip to main content

Introduction: Ideas that Changed the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The EU's Common Security and Defence Policy

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics ((PSEUP))

Abstract

This chapter introduces the argument, research design and significance of the book, as well as its structure.

The book explains why and how security policies in the EU have evolved, since the creation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), and as a result of two new ideas—the growing importance of non-military crisis management and the comprehensive approach to security. The book contends that, in the first decade of the 2000s, a process of learning has characterised CSDP policy evolution towards a softer, more civilian character, rather than the military purpose it was supposed to fulfil. Learning was made possible by the presence and actions of overlapping communities of experts and practitioners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adler, E. 2005. Communitarian international relations: The epistemic foundations of international relations. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— 2008. The spread of security communities: Communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO’s Post-Cold War transformation. European Journal of International Relations 14(2): 195–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, E., and P.M. Haas. 1992. Conclusion: Epistemic communities, world order and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organization 46(1): 367–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, E., and V. Pouliot. 2011a. International practices. International Theory 3(1): 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. (eds.). 2011b. International practices. Cambridge Studies in International Relations, October 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M.N., and M. Finnemore. 1999. The politics, power and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization 53(4, Autumn): 699–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bicchi, F. 2011. The EU as a community of practice: Foreign policy communications in the COREU network. Journal of European Public Policy 18(8): 1115–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1990. The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J.T. 2005. International institutions and socialization in Europe. Special issue of International Organization 59(4, Fall): 801–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, T., K.E. Jorgensen, and A. Wiener. 1999. The social construction of Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 6(4): 528–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Créplet, F., O. Dupouet, and E. Vaast. 2003. Episteme or practice? Differentiated communitarian structures in a biology laboratory. In Communities and technologies: Proceedings of the first international conference on communities and technologies, ed. M. Huysman, E. Wenger, and V. Wulf, 43–63. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, M.K. 2010. Cooperation by committee: The EU military committee and the committee for civilian crisis management. Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, Occasional Paper, February 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— 2011. Security integration in Europe: How knowledge-based networks are transforming the European Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Drent, M. 2011. The EU’s comprehensive approach to security: A culture of co-ordination? Studia Diplomatica LXIV(2): 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission and HR/VP. 2013. Joint communication to the European Parliament and the Council: The EU’s comprehensive approach to external conflicts and crises. Doc. JOIN(2013) 30 final, 11 December 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. 1970. The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grevi, G., D. Helly, and D. Keohane. 2009. European security and defence policy: The first 10 years (1999–2009). Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, E.B. 1990a. When knowledge is power: Three models of change in international organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P.M. 1990b. Saving the Mediterranean: The politics of international environmental cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46(1): 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. 1993. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25(3): 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howorth, J. 2007. Security and defence policy in the European Union, European Union series. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S.G. 2007. The rise of European security cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Juncos, A.E. 2006. Learning by doing: Civil-military co-ordination in EU crisis management policies. Paper presented at the Third Pan-European Conference of the ECPR Standing Group on EU Politics, Istanbul, 21–23 September 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juncos, A.E., and K. Pomorska. 2006. Playing the Brussels game: Strategic socialisation in the CFSP Council Working Groups. European Integration Online papers, vol. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juncos, A.E., and C. Reynolds. 2007. The political and security committee: Governing in the shadow. European Foreign Affairs Review 12(2): 127–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachmann, N. 2010. NATO-CSDP-EU relations: Sketching the map of a community of practice. CEPSI, University of Montreal, FALL 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J.S. 1994. Learning and foreign policy: Sweeping a conceptual minefield. International Organization 48: 279–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., and J.P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, K. 1998. The currency of ideas. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A., and U. Sedelmeier. 2010. Instruments and intentionality: Civilian crisis management and enlargement conditionality in EU security policy. West European Politics 33(1): 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mérand, F., S. Hofmann, and B. Irondelle. 2011. Governance and state power: A network analysis of European security. Journal of Common Market Studies 49(1): 121–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C.O. 2006. The quest for a European strategic culture: Changing norms on security and defence in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, A. (ed.). 2006. Civilian crisis management: The EU way. Chaillot paper no 90. EU Institute for Security Studies, June 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, J.S. 1987. Nuclear learning and US-Soviet security regimes. International Organization 41: 371–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, P. 1996. The path to European integration: A historical institutionalist analysis. Comparative Political Studies 29(2): 123–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, C.M. 2009. Measuring policy learning: Regulatory impact assessment in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 16(8): 1145–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse-Kappen, T. 1994. Ideas do not float freely: Transnational coalitions, domestic structures, and the end of the Cold War. International Organization 48(2): 185–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J.G. 1975. International responses to technology: Concepts and trends. International Organizations 29(3): 557–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdun, A. 1999. The role of the Delors Committee in the creation of EMU: An epistemic community? Journal of European Public Policy 6(2): 308–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zito, A.R. 2009. European agencies as agents of governance and EU learning. Journal of European Public Policy 16(8): 1224–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Faleg, G. (2017). Introduction: Ideas that Changed the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. In: The EU's Common Security and Defence Policy . Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41306-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics