C
o
u
n
t
e
r
p
i
r
a
c
y
1
3
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
S
o
m
a
l
i
a
1
,
8
0
0
1
3
.
E
U
T
M
S
o
m
a
l
i
a
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
o
f
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
f
o
r
c
e
s
7
A
p
r
i
l
2
0
1
0
S
o
m
a
l
i
a
/
U
g
a
n
d
a
1
5
0
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
1
.
A
r
t
e
m
i
s
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
1
2
J
u
n
e
1
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
3
D
R
C
o
n
g
o
1
,
8
0
0
2
.
E
U
P
A
T
L
a
w
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
1
4
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
5
1
5
J
u
n
e
2
0
0
6
M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
3
0
3
.
C
o
n
c
o
r
d
i
a
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
3
1
M
a
r
c
h
1
5
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
3
M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
8
5
0
4
.
E
U
P
O
L
P
r
o
x
i
m
a
L
a
w
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
1
5
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
3
1
4
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
5
M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
2
0
0
5
.
E
u
j
u
s
t
T
h
e
m
i
s
R
u
l
e
o
f
l
a
w
1
6
J
u
l
y
2
0
0
4
1
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
0
5
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
6
.
A
M
M
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
1
5
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
5
1
1
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
6
A
c
e
h
,
I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
8
0
7
.
E
U
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
o
A
M
I
S
C
i
v
i
l
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
2
J
u
n
e
2
0
0
5
3
1
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
D
a
r
f
u
r
5
0
1
0
0
8
.
E
U
P
O
L
-
K
i
n
s
h
a
s
h
a
L
a
w
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
0
5
J
u
n
e
2
0
0
7
D
R
C
o
n
g
o
3
0
9
.
E
U
F
O
R
D
R
C
o
n
g
o
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
1
J
u
n
e
3
0
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
6
D
R
C
o
n
g
o
/
G
a
b
o
n
8
0
0
1
0
.
E
U
F
O
R
C
h
a
d
/
D
R
C
o
n
g
o
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
1
5
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
0
8
1
5
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
0
9
C
h
a
d
/
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
A
f
r
i
c
a
n
R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
3
,
7
0
0
(
o
n
e
F
r
e
n
c
h
c
a
s
u
a
l
t
y
)
1
1
.
E
U
S
S
R
G
u
i
n
e
a
-
B
i
s
s
a
u
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
S
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
f
o
r
m
1
J
u
n
e
2
0
0
8
3
0
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
G
u
i
n
e
a
-
B
i
s
s
a
u
2
1
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
G
r
e
v
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
,
a
n
n
e
x
e
s
1
a
n
d
2
,
p
p
.
4
1
4
1
5
)
a
d
a
p
t
e
d
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
t
o
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
.
12 ALESSIA BIAVA, MARGRIET DRENT AND GRAEME P. HERD
2011 The Author(s)
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
individuals become aware of EU priorities and familiarize themselves with
CSDP objectives. This awareness is inculcated and institutionalized through
the socializing effects of participation in CSDP interventions (civilian and
military) and training exercises and service on EU structures and committees.
Christoph O. Meyer (2006), for example, concluded that CSDPs central
institution, the Political and Security Committee (PSC), has had an important
role in the convergence of Member States strategic cultures. The PSC builds
condence, establishes consent and brokers compromises even in areas where
this would not be expected and acts as a multiplier of social inuence that is
able to forge norm convergence through informational inuence as well as
peer pressure (Meyer, 2006; Matlary, 2006). As Biava (2011a, b) has empiri-
cally evidenced, socialization processes within the PSC generate shared
norms, common expectations and common visions, which are essential to the
emergence of a European strategic culture. To take one last example, between
2000 and 2003 the EU Military Staff developed a set of concept papers
covering all the main doctrinal topics where Member States agreement was
needed prior to the mounting of military CSDP operations. These papers,
mainly classied EU RESTRICTED, were all staffed through the EU system,
achieving unanimous Member State agreement and ending up as ofcial
Council documents. The 15 agreed papers ranged from the rst one on
Military Strategic Planning to the nal and most difcult one on Use of
Force, including a generic Rules of Engagement.
7
Such behaviour is also habituated through the provision of increased
professional development and training opportunities open to diplomatic and
military personnel at the EU level. Indeed, a clearly stated goal of the Euro-
pean Security and Defence College (ESDC) is to spread EU strategic culture.
The ESDC and European Police College (CEPOL), which organizes 80100
courses, seminars and conferences per year, are just two of several training
organizations under the EU umbrella. Both serve to incrementally and vol-
untarily transplant EU civilian and military security norms to the national
Member State level. In addition, the European Defence Agency (EDA, 2006)
aims to overcome policy culture differences that have caused previous
collaborative armaments projects to fail and as such could play a crucial
role in institutionalizing peer group pressure among the national military
establishments (Grant, 2004, p. 61). The work-plan of the EUs Institute of
Strategic Studies in Paris, created to help foster an EU strategic culture, now
complements that of the PSC and has already produced think-pieces outlining
an EU White Paper.
7
The authors gratefully acknowledge Major General Graham Messervy-Whiting, Chief of Staff of the EU
Military Staff (200003), for providing this argument.
CHARACTERIZING THE EUS STRATEGIC CULTURE 13
2011 The Author(s)
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The pressure of external threats, the EUs cumulative operational response
and the internal generation of EU norms towards the use of military and
civilian instruments for security goals generate a growing narrative and secu-
rity discourse that frames the EU as a strategic actor. The adaptation of
capabilities and capacities to address and manage the new threats and the
development of shared norms within the CSDP are interconnected dynamics
which shape and drive forward the EUs strategic culture. This is facilitated
by a growing discourse coalition of euro-strategists operating at the EU
level and in think tanks and academic departments of the Member States
themselves pushing for a global power grand strategy (Rogers, 2009, p. 845;
Krotz, 2009, p. 560). In addition to extensive exercise experience in Nato, the
EU Member States have a good record of participating in UN peacekeeping
operations, also side by side. Many Member States have also co-operated in
multinational force structures, with Eurocorps being an example of this.
8
Thus, CSDP can also rely on some acquis concerning practices, procedures,
conduct, modes of operational experiences and connections gained on a
bi/tri/multilateral basis.
Conclusions
The conception of the EU as a Kantian postmodern normative power (as
captured in Table 1) is an outdated stereotype. Even if it is to be argued that
the narrow cold war conception of strategic culture as the use of military force
to address strategic threats holds true today, then the fact that some CSDP
missions have used military force to achieve political objectives must dem-
onstrate that the EU has a strategic culture. The question therefore is what
type of strategic culture, given the magnitude, frequency and purpose of these
military missions.
Table 3 provides us with an analytical framework through which we can
capture the nature and evolution of an EU strategic culture. It notes when
strategic guidelines and frameworks were elaborated, which ipso facto are
evidence that the EU has an evolving strategic approach. This process is
taking place within Title V of the Treaty on the European Union, in the
framework of the ESS of 2003 and the Report on its Implementation of 2008,
but also through a number of key documents within the CSDP that are
progressively shaping the EUs strategic behaviour. That these guidelines
identify what it is that constitutes strategic threats makes it clear that the EU
8
Other examples include: Eurofor, Euromarfor, the European Gendarmerie Force, the SpanishItalian
amphibious force, the European Air Group, the European Air Co-ordination cell in Eindhoven, the Athens
Multinational Sealift Co-ordination Centre and the DutchBritish amphibious force.
14 ALESSIA BIAVA, MARGRIET DRENT AND GRAEME P. HERD
2011 The Author(s)
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
T
a
b
l
e
3
:
A
n
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
Y
e
a
r
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
t
h
r
e
a
t
s
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
w
h
i
c
h
t
o
a
c
t
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
a
n
d
c
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
t
o
o
l
-
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
a
c
t
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
a
c
h
i
n
e
r
y
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
a
c
t
/
t
o
d
e
c
i
d
e
t
o
a
c
t
N
o
r
m
s
l
e
g
i
t
i
m
a
c
y
f
o
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
K
e
y
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
&
c
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
c
t
i
n
g
1
9
9
7
A
m
s
t
e
r
d
a
m
T
r
e
a
t
y
(
e
n
t
e
r
s
i
n
t
o
f
o
r
c
e
1
9
9
9
)
P
e
t
e
r
s
b
e
r
g
t
a
s
k
s
=
h
u
m
a
n
i
t
a
r
i
a
n
,
s
e
a
r
c
h
&
r
e
s
c
u
e
,
p
e
a
c
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
,
c
r
i
s
i
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
p
e
a
c
e
m
a
k
i
n
g
C
r
i
s
i
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
o
l
b
o
x
d
i
p
l
o
m
a
t
i
c
,
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
,
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
=
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
H
i
g
h
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
o
n
F
o
r
e
i
g
n
a
n
d
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
P
o
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
E
U
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
H
u
m
a
n
i
t
a
r
i
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
;
m
u
l
t
i
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
i
s
m
;
U
N
a
n
d
I
L
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
;
c
o
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
;
r
e
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
1
9
9
8
S
t
M
a
l
o
s
u
m
m
i
t
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
E
U
s
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
t
s
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
a
u
t
o
n
o
m
y
1
9
9
9
(
E
U
a
t
1
5
)
H
e
l
s
i
n
k
i
H
e
a
d
l
i
n
e
G
o
a
l
2
0
0
3
C
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
/
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
R
R
F
c
r
i
s
i
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
=
f
o
r
c
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
S
C
/
C
O
P
S
t
o
m
a
n
a
g
e
C
S
D
P
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
F
i
v
e
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
Q
s
=
M
o
n
t
V
a
l
r
i
e
n
,
N
o
r
t
h
w
o
o
d
,
P
o
t
s
d
a
m
,
L
a
r
i
s
s
a
,
C
e
n
t
o
c
e
l
l
e
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
-
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
2
0
0
1
N
i
c
e
T
r
e
a
t
y
;
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
s
u
m
m
i
t
(
L
a
e
k
e
n
)
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
E
C
A
P
)
.
B
e
l
g
i
a
n
E
U
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
y
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
t
o
l
a
u
n
c
h
a
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
t
r
e
n
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
d
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
W
h
i
t
e
P
a
p
e
r
o
n
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
a
n
d
D
e
f
e
n
c
e
G
e
n
d
a
r
m
e
r
i
e
F
o
r
c
e
(
E
G
F
)
;
l
e
g
a
l
o
f
c
i
a
l
s
;
c
i
v
i
l
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
e
x
p
e
r
t
s
;
d
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
r
e
l
i
e
f
i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
e
a
m
s
.
E
U
I
S
S
E
U
a
g
e
n
c
y
g
i
v
e
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
t
o
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
f
E
U
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
o
n
F
o
r
e
i
g
n
a
n
d
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
P
o
l
i
c
y
E
U
M
C
a
n
d
E
U
M
S
(
s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
i
n
g
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
a
d
v
i
s
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
f
M
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
s
.
C
i
v
C
o
m
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
f
o
r
C
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
A
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
C
r
i
s
i
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
;
B
e
r
l
i
n
-
p
l
u
s
CHARACTERIZING THE EUS STRATEGIC CULTURE 15
2011 The Author(s)
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
T
a
b
l
e
3
:
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Y
e
a
r
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
t
h
r
e
a
t
s
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
w
h
i
c
h
t
o
a
c
t
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
a
n
d
c
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
t
o
o
l
-
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
a
c
t
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
a
c
h
i
n
e
r
y
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
a
c
t
/
t
o
d
e
c
i
d
e
t
o
a
c
t
N
o
r
m
s
l
e
g
i
t
i
m
a
c
y
f
o
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
K
e
y
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
&
c
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
c
t
i
n
g
2
0
0
3
T
r
e
a
t
y
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
s
a
C
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
(
M
u
t
u
a
l
D
e
f
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
u
s
e
,
S
o
l
i
d
a
r
i
t
y
C
l
a
u
s
e
,
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
C
o
-
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
T
e
r
r
o
r
i
s
m
,
s
t
a
t
e
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
,
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
c
r
i
s
e
s
,
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
d
c
r
i
m
e
,
W
M
D
p
r
o
l
i
f
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
c
o
m
m
o
n
E
U
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
H
Q
t
o
b
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
T
e
r
v
u
r
e
n
,
c
l
o
s
e
t
o
B
r
u
s
s
e
l
s
,
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
a
t
a
T
e
r
v
u
r
e
n
G
r
o
u
p
(
F
r
a
n
c
e
,
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
,
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
,
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
)
A
p
r
i
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
;
c
o
-
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
c
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
a
n
d
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
p
o
w
e
r
;
e
x
p
a
n
d
c
o
-
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
n
o
n
-
E
U
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
r
d
e
r
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
m
u
l
t
i
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
i
s
m
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
U
N
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
N
a
t
i
o
n
-
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
;
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
-
i
n
s
u
r
g
e
n
c
y
;
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
S
D
P
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
E
U
P
M
;
F
Y
R
O
M
E
U
F
O
R
C
o
n
c
o
r
d
i
a
;
D
R
C
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
t
e
m
i
s
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
Q
M
o
n
t
V
a
l
r
i
e
n
2
0
0
4
(
E
U
a
t
2
5
)
C
i
v
i
l
a
n
H
e
a
d
l
i
n
e
G
o
a
l
2
0
0
8
H
e
a
d
l
i
n
e
G
o
a
l
2
0
1
0
.
C
y
p
r
u
s
,
C
z
e
c
h
R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
,
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
,
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
,
L
a
t
v
i
a
,
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
,
M
a
l
t
a
,
P
o
l
a
n
d
,
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
a
n
d
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
n
e
w
E
U
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
A
g
r
e
e
t
o
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
B
G
s
;
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
-
t
e
r
r
o
r
i
s
m
c
o
-
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
.
C
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
T
e
a
m
s
E
D
A
C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
F
i
r
s
t
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
E
U
F
O
R
A
l
t
h
e
a
(
B
i
H
)
f
r
o
m
N
a
t
o
-
l
e
d
S
F
O
R
u
n
d
e
r
B
e
r
l
i
n
-
p
l
u
s
.
S
H
A
P
E
O
H
Q
.
7
,
0
0
0
-
s
t
r
o
n
g
(
E
U
s
l
a
r
g
e
s
t
c
r
i
s
i
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
)
2
0
0
5
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
P
o
l
i
c
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
(
C
E
P
O
L
)
;
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
a
n
d
D
e
f
e
n
c
e
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
(
E
S
D
C
)
v
i
r
t
u
a
l
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
-
l
e
v
e
l
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
i
n
C
S
D
P
A
M
I
S
I
I
(
D
a
r
f
u
r
)
c
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
s
s
i
s
t
A
U
U
N
h
y
b
r
i
d
p
e
a
c
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
(
U
N
A
M
I
D
)
2
0
0
6
E
D
A
L
o
n
g
T
e
r
m
V
i
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
D
e
f
e
n
c
e
C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
N
e
e
d
s
E
U
B
a
t
t
l
e
G
r
o
u
p
s
c
o
m
b
a
t
u
n
i
t
s
f
o
r
r
a
p
i
d
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
E
G
F
f
u
l
l
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
e
a
c
e
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
;
a
u
t
o
n
o
m
y
E
U
F
O
R
R
D
C
o
n
g
o
,
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
U
N
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
Q
P
o
t
s
d
a
m
16 ALESSIA BIAVA, MARGRIET DRENT AND GRAEME P. HERD
2011 The Author(s)
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
2
0
0
7
(
E
U
a
t
2
7
)
C
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
H
Q
2
0
1
0
T
r
e
a
t
y
o
f
L
i
s
b
o
n
.
B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
a
n
d
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
n
e
w
E
U
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
U
p
d
a
t
i
n
g
P
e
t
e
r
s
b
e
r
g
t
a
s
k
s
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
o
n
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
c
o
-
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
E
U
B
G
s
f
u
l
l
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
.
E
U
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
e
n
t
r
e
(
E
U
O
H
Q
)
;
C
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
C
P
C
C
)
J
o
i
n
t
S
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
C
e
n
t
r
e
(
S
I
T
C
E
N
)
E
U
m
u
t
u
a
l
s
o
l
i
d
a
r
i
t
y
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
E
U
F
O
R
A
l
t
h
e
a
r
e
c
o
n
g
u
r
e
d
1
2
-
m
o
n
t
h
U
N
S
C
m
a
n
d
a
t
e
(
u
n
t
i
l
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
)
2
0
0
8
L
i
s
b
o
n
T
r
e
a
t
y
r
e
j
e
c
t
e
d
J
u
n
e
2
0
0
8
.
E
D
A
C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
.
R
e
p
o
r
t
o
n
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
E
S
S
N
e
w
t
h
r
e
a
t
s
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
b
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
o
n
t
h
e
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
E
S
S
:
c
y
b
e
r
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
,
e
n
e
r
g
y
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
,
m
a
r
i
t
i
m
e
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
,
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
C
P
C
C
.
C
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
H
Q
E
U
M
M
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
c
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
C
h
a
d
/
R
C
A
b
r
i
d
g
i
n
g
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
C
h
a
d
a
n
d
C
A
R
U
N
S
C
m
a
n
d
a
t
e
.
E
U
N
A
V
F
O
R
S
o
m
a
l
i
a
m
a
r
i
t
i
m
e
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
-
p
i
r
a
c
y
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
2
0
0
9
L
i
s
b
o
n
T
r
e
a
t
y
e
n
t
e
r
s
i
n
t
o
f
o
r
c
e
1
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
H
i
g
h
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
o
f
t
h
e
U
n
i
o
n
f
o
r
F
o
r
e
i
g
n
A
f
f
a
i
r
s
a
n
d
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
P
o
l
i
c
y
.
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
c
o
-
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
C
r
i
s
i
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
a
t
e
(
C
M
P
D
)
,
l
o
c
a
t
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
c
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
a
n
d
c
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
o
n
e
b
o
d
y
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
t
a
l
a
n
t
a
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
-
p
i
r
a
c
y
a
n
d
e
s
c
o
r
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
0
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
C
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
E
A
S
)
E
U
T
M
S
o
m
a
l
i
a
/
U
g
a
n
d
a
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
o
f
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
f
o
r
c
e
s
5
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
p
l
u
s
?
E
U
D
e
f
e
n
c
e
W
h
i
t
e
P
a
p
e
r
?
E
U
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
D
o
c
t
r
i
n
e
?
E
U
a
t
3
1
(
C
r
o
a
t
i
a
,
G
r
e
e
n
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
I
c
e
l
a
n
d
)
?
E
U
a
t
3
4
(
S
e
r
b
i
a
,
A
l
b
a
n
i
a
,
M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
)
?
F
o
o
d
,
h
e
a
l
t
h
&
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
?
U
n
i
e
d
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
a
r
m
y
?
E
U
e
m
b
a
s
s
i
e
s
?
B
e
t
t
e
r
c
o
-
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
n
e
x
u
s
?
U
n
i
o
n
M
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
f
o
r
F
o
r
e
i
g
n
A
f
f
a
i
r
s
?
F
o
r
D
e
f
e
n
c
e
?
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
w
i
t
h
B
R
I
C
S
/
N
-
1
1
s
t
a
t
e
s
?
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
c
i
v
i
l
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
h
e
a
d
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
?
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
g
l
o
b
a
l
c
o
m
m
o
n
s
?
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
;
R
2
P
;
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
p
r
i
v
a
c
y
?
F
r
o
m
2
4
t
o
4
0
C
S
D
P
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
?
L
o
n
g
e
r
,
l
a
r
g
e
r
,
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
g
e
o
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
r
a
n
g
e
,
m
o
r
e
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
,
b
e
t
t
e
r
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
?
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
A
d
a
p
t
e
d
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
t
o
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
f
r
o
m
H
e
r
d
(
2
0
0
9
,
t
a
b
l
e
1
,
p
p
.
5
6
7
)
.
CHARACTERIZING THE EUS STRATEGIC CULTURE 17
2011 The Author(s)
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
considers a range of military and non-military sources of strategic insecurity.
The construction of both military and non-military tools demonstrates the
political will to have the capability to act, as does the strengthening of
institutional machinery which is evidence of an increased capacity to act in
countering or managing strategic sources of insecurity. The slow expansion of
the normative framework within which operations can occur demonstrates an
increased legitimacy for military and civilian operations designed to achieve
political objectives. Finally, as noted above, the actual application of civilian
instruments and military force to address the strategic sources of insecurity
demonstrates a political will to use the capabilities created in support of the
stated strategic objectives.
The analytical framework captures formal drivers of the EUs strategic
culture the institutions, operations and strategic-level guidelines that set out
the purpose, means and goals of security policy as expressions of the content
of strategic culture as well as the informal normative underpinnings of such
a culture. The content of this framework is the resultant and material expres-
sions of a strategic culture, the metrics by which the nature of a strategic
culture can best be established. In addition, the range of these analytical
categories fully captures the nature of the EUs evolving strategic culture and
traces its development over time, evidencing not a decoupling between
saying/rhetoric and doing/action, but a characteristic gradualist implementa-
tion process.
That culture is based on an enlarged vision of security and on a compre-
hensive, multilateral and internationally legitimated approach to threats,
implying the use of all sorts of instruments (military and civilian) in an
integrated manner. It would also be interesting, albeit highly speculative, to
use this analytical framework to project forward and identify possible path-
ways that would track the future evolution of an EU strategic culture. For
example, in the immediate term how might a CSDP humanitarian assistance
operation in support of an Egyptian-led post-conict stabilization and recon-
struction force in Libya shape the EUs strategic culture? Over the medium
term, might we witness the development of a Defence White Paper and
military doctrine, a unied European army and diplomatic service, with EU
embassies (for which the EAS can be considered a precursor), an EU Minister
for External Affairs, as well as for Defence and a geostrategic reach that is
global in support of preserving a western normative framework that governs
access to and use of the global commons? This analytical framework can also
act as a stable reference point to compare and contrast the strategic cultures
of a range of actors, so locating the EUs strategic culture within a global
spectrum.
18 ALESSIA BIAVA, MARGRIET DRENT AND GRAEME P. HERD
2011 The Author(s)
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Correspondence:
Alessia Biava
European Institute of the University of Geneva
Rue Jean-Daniel Colladon 2
1204 Geneva, Switzerland
email alessia.biava@unige.ch
References
selius, G. (2005) Swedish Strategic Culture after 1945. Co-operation and Con-
ict, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 2544.
Bailes, A. (1999) European Defence: What are the Convergence Criteria? RUSI
Journal, June, pp. 605.
Baun, M. (2005) How Necessary is a Common Strategic Culture? Oxford Journal
on Good Governance, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 337.
Biava, A. (2009) Vers un Quartier general europen? Les implications pour le
dveloppement dune culture stratgique europenne. In Ramel, F. La Prsi-
dence franaise de lUnion europenne et la PESD. Cahier du CEREM (Centre
dEtudes et de Recherche de lEcole militaire), No. 7, pp. 4959.
Biava, A. (2011a) The Emergence of a Strategic Culture within the Common Secu-
rity and Defence Policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.
4158.
Biava, A. (2011b) Vers une culture stratgique europenne? (Louvain-la-Neuve:
Academia-Bruylant), forthcoming.
Booth, K. (2005) Strategic Culture: Validity and Validation. Oxford Journal on
Good Governance, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 258.
Bulut, E., Giovanni G., Helly, D. and Keohane, D. (2009) European Security and
Defence Policy: The First Ten Years (19992009) (Paris: Institute for Security
Studies, European Union).
Commission of the European Union (2008) Report on the implementation of the
European Security Strategy: providing security in a changing world, S407/08, 11
December, Brussels.
Cornish, P. and Edwards, G. (2005) The Strategic Culture of the European Union: A
Progress Report. International Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 4, pp. 80120.
Dalgaard-Nielsen, A. (2005) The Test of Strategic Culture: Germany, Pacism and
Pre-emptive Strikes. Security Dialogue, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 33959.
Desch, M.C. (1998) Culture Clash: Assessing the Importance of Ideas in Security
Studies. International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 14170.
Drent, M. (2008) Het huidige veiligheids- en defensiebeleid van de Bondsrepubliek
Duitsland: Zivilmacht andere stijl? Vrede en Veiligheid. Tijdschrift voor Interna-
tionale Vraagstukken, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 6384.
Drent, M. and Zandee, D. (2010) Breaking Pillars: Towards a CivilMilitary Security
Approach for the European Union (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of Interna-
tional Relations Clingendael).
CHARACTERIZING THE EUS STRATEGIC CULTURE 19
2011 The Author(s)
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Dufeld, J.S. (1999) Political Culture and State Behaviour: Why Germany Con-
founds Neorealism. International Organization, No. 53, pp. 765803.
Dumoulin, A., Manigart, P., Struys, W., Michel, L. and Flahaut, A. (2003)
La Belgique et la politique europenne de scurit et de dfense: une
approche politique, sociologique et conomique (Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia-
Bruylant).
European Council (2003) A Secure Europe in a Better World: European Security
Strategy, Brussels, 12 December. Available at: http://consilium.europa.eu/
uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf.
European Defence Agency (2006) An Initial Long-Term Vision for European Defence
Capability and Capacity Needs, October. Available at: http://www.eda.
europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?id=146.
Freedman, L. (2004) Can the EU Develop an Effective Military Doctrine? In
Everts, S. et al., A European Way of War (London: Centre for European
Reform).
Grant, C. (2004) Conclusions: The Signicance of European Defence. In Everts, S.
et al., A European Way of War (London: Centre for European Reform).
Gray, C.S. (1981) National Style in Strategy: The American Example. International
Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 3527.
Gray, C.S. (1999) Strategic Culture as Context: The First Generation of Theory
Strikes Back. Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 4969.
Grevi, G., Helly, D. and Keohane, D. (eds) (2009) European Security and Defence
Policy: The First Ten Years (19992009) (Paris: Institute for Security Studies,
European Union).
Hadeld, A. (2005) The EU and Strategic Culture: Virtual Identity vs Uploaded
Preferences. Journal of Contemporary European Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.
5972.
Heisbourg, F. (2000) Europes Strategic Ambitions: The Limits of Ambiguity.
Survival, Vol. 42, No. 29, pp. 515.
Heiselberg, S. (2003) Pacism or Activism: Towards a Common Strategic Culture
within the European Security and Defense Policy. IISS Working Paper 2003/4
(Copenhagen: Institute for International Studies).
Herd, G.P. (2009) EUTurkey Clashing Political and Strategic Cultures as Stum-
bling Blocks on the Road to Accession. In Volten, P.M.E. (ed.) Perceptions and
Misperceptions in the EU and Turkey: Stumbling Blocks on the Road to Acces-
sion. Harmonie Paper 23 (Groningen: CESS).
Heusgen, C. (2005) Is There Such a Thing as a European Strategic Culture? Oxford
Journal on Good Governance, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 2932.
Howorth, J. (2001) European Integration and Defence: The Ultimate Challenge?
Chaillot Paper 43 (Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies).
Howorth, J. (2002) The CESDP and the Forging of a European Security Culture.
Politique Europeenne, No. 8, pp. 88108.
Howorth, J. (2007) Security and Defence Policy in the European Union (Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan).
20 ALESSIA BIAVA, MARGRIET DRENT AND GRAEME P. HERD
2011 The Author(s)
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Hyde-Price, A. (2004) European Security, Strategic Culture and the Use of Force.
European Security, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 32343.
Hyde-Price, A. (2008) A Tragic Actor? A Realist Perspective on Ethical Power
Europe . International Affairs, Vol. 84, No. 1, pp. 2944.
Johnston, A.I. (1999) Strategic Cultures Revisited: A Reply to Colin Gray. Inter-
national Security, Vol. 25, pp. 51923.
Katzenstein, P.J. (1996) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in
World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press).
Klein, Y. (1991) ATheory of Strategic Culture. Comparative Strategy, Vol. 10, No.
1, pp. 323.
Krotz, U. (2009) Momentum and Impediments: Why Europe Wont Emerge as a Full
Political Actor on the World Stage Soon. JCMS, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 55578.
Lantis, J.S. (2002) The Moral Imperative of Force: The Evolution of German
Strategic Culture in Kosovo. Comparative Strategy, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 2146.
Lindley-French, J. (2002) In the Shade of Locarno? Why European Defence is
Failing. International Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 789811.
Matlary, J.H. (2006) When Soft Power Turns Hard: Is an EU Strategic Culture
Possible? Security Dialogue, Vol. 37, pp. 10521.
Meyer, C.O. (2005) European Defence: Why Institutional Socialisation is Not
Enough. Oxford Journal on Good Governance, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 514.
Meyer, C.O. (2006) The Quest for a European Strategic Culture: Changing Norms on
Security and Defence in the European Union (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Naumann, K. (2005) Military Needs of a Strategic Culture in Europe. Oxford
Journal on Good Governance, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 214.
Poore, S. (2003) What is the Context? A Reply to the Gray-Johnston Debate on
Strategic Culture. Review of International Studies, Vol. 29, pp. 27984.
Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P. (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Ramel, F. (2009) La Prsidence franaise de lUnion europenne et la PESD,
Cahier du CEREM (Centre dEtudes et de Recherche de lEcole militaire), No. 7.
Rasmussen, M.V. (2005) Whats the Use of It? Danish Strategic Culture and the
Utility of Armed Force. Co-operation and Conict, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 6789.
Rieker, P. (2006a) From Common Defence to Comprehensive Security: Towards the
Europeanization of French Foreign and Security Policy? Security Dialogue, Vol.
37, No. 4, pp. 50928.
Rieker, P. (2006b) Europeanization of National Security Identity: The EU and the
Changing Security Identities of the Nordic States (London: Routledge).
Rogers, J. (2009) From Civilian Power to Global Power: Explicating the
European Unions Grand Strategy though the Articulation of Discourse
Theory. JCMS, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 83162.
Rynning, S. (2003) The European Union: Towards a Strategic Culture? Security
Dialogue, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 47996.
Rynning, S. (2005) Less May be Better in EU Security and Defence Policy. Oxford
Journal on Good Governance, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 4550.
CHARACTERIZING THE EUS STRATEGIC CULTURE 21
2011 The Author(s)
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Schwok, R. and Mrand, F. (2009) LUnion europenne et la scurit internationale:
thories et pratiques (Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia-Bruylant).
Snyder, J.L. (1977) The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Limited Nuclear
Options (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation).
Tardy, T. (2007) The European Union: From Conict Prevention to Preventive
Engagement, Still a Civilian Power Lacking a Strategic Culture. International
Journal, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 53955.
Tardy, T. (ed.) (2009) European Security in a Global Context (London: Routledge).
Toje, A. (2005) Introduction: The EU Strategic Culture. Oxford Journal on Good
Governance, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 916.
22 ALESSIA BIAVA, MARGRIET DRENT AND GRAEME P. HERD
2011 The Author(s)
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd