Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

EU Maritime Foreign and Security Policy Integration: Explaining the EU Maritime Security Strategy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Maritime Turn in EU Foreign and Security Policies

Abstract

How can we explain EU maritime foreign and security policy integration? What are the mechanisms driving integration in this domain? This chapter seeks to tease this out by conducting an in-depth study of the adoption of the EU Maritime Security Strategy (EUMSS). The EUMSS was adopted in 2014, despite initial opposition of several member states. To tease out a comprehensive explanation of the EUMSS, the chapter explores the relevance four analytically distinct hypotheses across different phases of the policy-making process. The analysis finds that the adoption of the EUMSS can be explained in three phases where different mechanisms were at work. First, in line with a neo-realist hypothesis, structural changes in the maritime global security environment created a window of opportunity for a coalition of member states to place a maritime strategy on the EU agenda. Second, the EEAS and the Commission had a key role in driving a cross-sectoral strategy forward, in line with rational institutionalist predictions. Third, geopolitical events, especially those linked to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, created a security environment that was acted upon by a pro-EUMSS coalition to get it adopted. The study also shows that the normative content of the EUMSS was not contested or debated in any stages of the policy-making process, suggesting that norms influenced the EUMSS through the mechanism of habitual response. This has far-reaching consequences for our understanding of EU foreign and security policy, suggesting that the EU even in this policy area has reached a level of maturity where certain standards and norms of appropriate behaviour are taken for granted, indeed even being part of the EU’s external identity.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Names are used in agreement with Isto Mattila and Marcus Houben.

References

  • Carlsnaes, W. (2006). Foreign policy. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 331–349). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. T. (2001). Why comply? Social learning and European identity change. International Organization, 55(3), 553–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. (2005). It’s the process stupid! Process tracing in the study of European and International Politics. Arena working-paper, 26/2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. T. (2006). Tracing causal mechanisms. International Studies Review, 8(2), 362–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, M. H., & Riddervold, M. (2015). The unexpected negotiator at the table: How the European Commission’s expertise informs intergovernmental EU policies. Under review in Governance and Politics, Special issue on ‘The role of expert knowledge in EU executive institutions’ (Edited by Å. Gornitzka & C. Holst).

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission and EEAS. (2014, March 6). Joint communication to the European Parliament and the Council. For an open and secure global maritime domain: Elements for a European Union maritime security strategy. JOIN/2014/09 final, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council. (2014a). European Union maritime security strategy. Brussels, 24 June 2014 (OR. en) 11205/14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council. (2014b). European Union maritime security strategy (EUMSS). Action Plan, 16 December 2014 (OR. en) 17002/14, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cram, L. (1994). The European Commission as a multi-organization. Journal of European Public Policy, 1(2), 195–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, M. (2010). Cooperation by committee: The EU Military Committee and the Committee for Civilian Crisis Management. Occasional Paper, 82, 5–39. European Union Institute for Security Studies, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Nevers, R. (2015). Sovereignty at sea: States and security in the maritime domain. Security Studies, 24(4), 597–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deitelhoff, N. (2009). The discursive process of legalisation: Charting Islands of persuasion in the ICC case. International Organization, 63(01), 33–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elgstöm, O., & Smith, M. (Eds.). (2006). The European Union’s roles in international politics. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliaeson, S. (2002). Max Weber’s methodologies. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1998). A plea for mechanisms. In P. Hedström & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Social mechanisms. An analytical approach to social theory (pp. 45–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, E. O. (2005). Reflexive integration in Europe. In E. O. Eriksen (Ed.), Making the European polity. Reflexive integration in the EU (pp. 9–29). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, E. O., & Fossum, J. E. (Eds.). (2002). Democracy in the European Union: Integration through deliberation? New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frontini, A. (2014, June 26). The European Union maritime security strategy: Sailing uncharted waters?. European Policy Centre. http://www.epc.eu/pub_details.php?pub_id=4569

  • Germond, B. (2015). The maritime dimension of European security. Seapower and the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Germond, B., & Smith, M. E. (2009). Re-thinking European security interests and the ESDP: Explaining the EU’s anti-piracy operation. Contemporary Security Policy, 30(3), 573–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetze, S., & Rittberger, B. (2010). A matter of habit? The sociological foundations of empowering the European Parliament. Comparative European Politics, 8(1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde-Price, A. (2006). ‘Normative’ power Europe: A realist critique. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde-Price, A. (2012). Neorealism: A structural approach to CSDP. In X. Kurowska & F. Breuer (Eds.), Explaining the EU’s common security and defence policy. Theory in action (pp. 16–40). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hynek, N. (2011). EU crisis management after the Lisbon treaty: Civil–military coordination and the future of the EU OHQ. European Security, 20(1), 81–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurowska, X., & Breuer, F. (Eds.). (2012). Explaining the EU’s common security and defence policy. Theory in action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. (2003). Informal integration and the supranational construction of the Council. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(6), 996–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1998). The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization, 52(4), 943–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). The logic of appropriateness. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 689–708). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, S., & Rees, W. (2012). The European Union in the security of Europe: From Cold War to Terror War. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014, September/October). Why the Ukraine crisis is the west’s fault: The liberal delusions that provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/papers/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault

  • Mingst, K. A. (2004). Essentials of international relations (Vol. 3). New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe. Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2009). Neoliberal intergovernmentalism. In A. Wiener & T. Diez (Eds.), European integration theory (2nd ed., pp. 67–87). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offerdal, K. (2011). EU in the Arctic: In pursuit of legitimacy and influence. International Journal, 66(4), 861–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, M. A. (1997). Delegation, agency and agenda setting in the European Community. International Organization, 51(1), 99–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posen, B. R. (2006). European Union security and defense policy: Response to unipolarity? Security Studies, 15(2), 149–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riddervold, M. (2011). Finally flexing its muscles? Atalanta – The EU’s naval military operation against piracy. European Security, 20(3), 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riddervold, M. (2015). (Not) in the hands of the member states: How the European Commission influences EU security and defence policies. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(2), 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2000). ‘Let’s argue!’: Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. and Ulbert, C. (2005). Deliberately changing the discourse: What does make arguing effective? Acta Política, 40(3), 351–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittberger, B. (2012). ‘Institutionalizing representative democracy in the European Union: the case of the European Parliament’. Journal of Common Market Studies. 50(1), 18–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosén, G. (2015). EU confidential: The European Parliament’s involvement in EU security and defence policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(2), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosén, G. (2016, 28 September). The impact of norms on political decision-making: How to account for the European Parliament’s empowerment in EU external trade policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–21. Published online doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1227357.

  • Sending, O. J. (2002). Constitution, choice and change: Problems with the ‘logic of appropriateness’ and its use in constructivist theory. European Journal of International Relations, 8, 443–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjursen, H. (2004). Changes to European security in a communicative perspective. Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, 39(2), 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjursen, H. (2006). Values or rights? Alternative conceptions of the EU’s ‘normative’ role. In O. Elgström & M. Smith (Eds.), The European Union’s roles in international politics (pp. 85–100). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snidal, D. (2002). Rational choice and international relations. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallberg, J. (2003). European governance and supranational institutions. Making states comply. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. C. (Ed.). (2012). Making EU foreign policy. National preferences, European norms and common policies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S. M. (2014, March 24). Would you die for that country?. Foreign Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warntjen, A. (2010). Between bargaining and deliberation: Decision-making in the Council of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 665–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, S., & Romanyshyn, I. (2011). Breaking the ice: The European Union and the Arctic. International Journal, 66(4), 849–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Rena, Norway

    Marianne Riddervold

  2. Institute of European Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Marianne Riddervold

  3. ARENA – Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Marianne Riddervold

Authors
  1. Marianne Riddervold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Riddervold, M. (2018). EU Maritime Foreign and Security Policy Integration: Explaining the EU Maritime Security Strategy. In: The Maritime Turn in EU Foreign and Security Policies . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66598-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation