Advertisement

The 1990–1991 European Communities-Balkans Crisis

  • M. Leann Brown
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter considers the EC’s response to conflict in Yugoslavia in 1990–1991. Initially, EC members did not recognize the crisis’ potential for violence. However, previous economic and political achievements and a desire to put in place a Common Foreign and Security Policy and enhance its global reputation encouraged the EC to engage this security challenge. In the end, the EC could only agree to devote diplomatic attention to the problem, mediate, impose an arms embargo, and curtail financial support; no member was willing to commit peacekeeping forces without Serbian acquiescence and an effective ceasefire in place. The EC called upon the UN to assume responsibility for the conflict, in what is regarded as a policy failure and a turning point in the REO’s development.

Keywords

European Communities (EC) Yugoslavia Common Foreign and Security Policy 1992 Maastricht Treaty France Germany Great Britain 

References

  1. Bjork, James, and Allan E. Goodman. 1993. Yugoslavia, 1991–92: Could Diplomacy Have Prevented a Tragedy? Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, M. Leann, Michael Kenney, and Michael Zarkin, eds. 2006. Organizational Learning in the Global Context. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Cooper, Robert. 2004. The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  4. Diez, Thomas. 2005. Constructing the Self and Changing Others: Reconsidering ‘Normative Power Europe’. Millennium 33 (3): 613–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Directorate-General of Research for the European Parliament. 1994. Fact Sheets on the European Parliament and the Activities of the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  6. Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, Mette, and Daniel Verdier. 2005. European Integration as a Solution to War. European Journal of International Relations 11: 99–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EU Leaders Try to Convert Trump Anxiety into Solidarity. 2017. Associated Press, Feb 2.Google Scholar
  8. European Communities. 1992. Treaty of European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  9. Freedman, Lawrence. 1992. Now force is the only way. The Independent, May 27, p. 19.Google Scholar
  10. Ginsberg, Roy H. 1994. The European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, an Outsider’s Perspective Retrospective on the First Year. ECSA Newsletter 7 (3): 13–16.Google Scholar
  11. Gompert, David. 1994. How to Defeat Serbia. Foreign Affairs 73 (4): 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gow, James. 1997. Triumph of the Lack of Will, International Diplomacy and the Yugoslav War. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hoffmann, Stanley. 1994. Europe’s Identity Crisis Revisited, Daedalus, Spring, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
  15. Juncker Calls for Collective EU Army. 2015. Deutsche Welle, March 8.Google Scholar
  16. Khong, Yuen Foong. 1992. Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kirchner, Emil J. 2011. The European Union as a Regional and Global Security Provider. In The Security Governance of Regional Organizations, ed. Emil J. Kirchner and Roberto Dominguez, 25–45. Abington: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Laffan, Brigid, Rory O’Donnell, and Michael Smith. 2000. Europe’s Experimental Union: Rethinking Integration. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Lane, Charles. 1996. Call to Arms. In The Black Book of Bosnia, the Consequences of Appeasement, ed. Nader Mousaizadeh, 143–146. New York: The New Republic, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Manners, Ian. 2002. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2): 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2006. Normative Power Reconsidered: Beyond the Crossroads. Journal of European Public Policy 13 (2): 82–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matthews, Mark. 1995. “Bosnia continues to preoccupy U.S., fray NATO ties,” Baltimore Sun, January 15.Google Scholar
  23. Merlingen, Michael. 2007. Everything Is Dangerous: A Critique of “Normative Power Europe”. Security Dialogue 38 (4): 435–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mix, Derek E. 2013. The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, April 8.Google Scholar
  25. Moravcsik, Andrew. 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nye, Joseph S., Jr. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  27. Posen, Barry R. 2006. European Union Security and Defense Policy: Response to Unipolarity? Security Studies 15 (2): 149–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shapiro, Michael J. 1987. The Politics of Representation. Madison: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sheridan, Michael. 1993. United Nations: What’s Gone Wrong? / The High Cost of Peace-Keeping: Failure in Yugoslavia. The Independent, November 1, p. 15.Google Scholar
  30. Steele, Brent. 2008. Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Watt, Nicholas. 2012. Nobel Peace Prize Leads EU to Question Its Raison d’etre. The Guardian, October 12.Google Scholar
  32. Wood, Pia Christina. 1993. European Political Cooperation: Lessons from the Gulf War and Yugoslavia. In The State of the European Communities, Vol. 2, The Maastricht Debates and Beyond, ed. Alan W. Cafruny and Glenda G. Rosenthal, 227–244. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Leann Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations