European Defence and Third Countries after Brexit
The UK’s departure from the European Union has given energy to the process towards ‘ever closer Union’ in the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Many policies and initiatives have been brought to the table in the aftermath of the referendum that created shock waves in Europe. This policy brief takes stock of the developments in European defence integration since the Brexit referendum in June 2016. Contrary to the dominant political and public debate about those developments, and the political optimism inside the EU, the brief identifies some key obstacles towards expanded European defence integration. With the UK’s exit from the EU, the ‘third country’ role in the CSDP will inevitably be altered, as one of the largest military powers in Europe will stand outside of the EU. For current third countries – like Norway and Iceland – this should lead to caution regarding immediate participation and a pragmatic approach to the developments. Energy and resources should not be invested before post-Brexit institutions and practices have been established.
Eit meir samankoppelet Asia – nye moglegheiter i Europa?
Handel og infrastrukturprosjekt skyt fart i Asia. Korleis kan det endre forholdet mellom land i Asia og Europa?
Working Paper: Comparing the EU’s Output Effectiveness in the Cases of Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali
This part of the overall report (Deliverable 7.1) on the EU’s crisis response in Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali compares the findings of three comprehensive cases-studies. The analytical focus is on the output dimension of EU policy-making that is the output of decision-making of the policy-making machinery in Brussels. Thus, the analysis is confined to the choices and decisions made regarding the EU’s problem definitions, policy goals, strategies and instruments – both on a strategic and operational level; thus policy implementation or impact will be analysed as next steps in following project reports (D 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4).
Working paper on implementation of EU crisis response in Mali
This paper offers a critical review of the EUTM and EUCAP in Mali, arguing that this is another example of international interventions that may be well-intended, but that end up producing very mixed results on the ground. One reason for this is the gaps between intentions and implementation and between implementation and local reception/perceptions. Whereas the first gap points to mismatches between EU policy intentions and what effect the implementation of these policies actually have (see for example Hill 1993), the latter gap reveals the inability of an international actor to both understand how key concepts such as ‘security sector reform’ and ‘border management’ are understood on the ground as well as translating its own policies and Brussels’ developed mandate into policies that makes sense for people on the ground (Cissé, Bøås, Kvamme and Dakouo 2017).
Frykten for populismen
Det snakkes mye og negativt om populistenes fremmarsj i Europa. Men det er ofte uklart hva som menes med populisme.
World of the Right: Alternative visions of global order (WoR)
Prosjektet ser nærmere på det konservative "nye høyre" i Russland, USA og Europa, og studerer hva slags alternative tanker og visjoner de har for global politikk....
Framtida til europeisk integrasjon: ei ny regjering for Tyskland – og for Europa
Michael Kaeding besøkjer NUPI for å snakke om Tysklands noverande rolle i det europeiske integrasjonsprosjektet og rolla til den nye regjeringa.
Øyvind Svendsen
Øyvind Svendsen er seniorforsker i Forskningsgruppen for global orden og diplomati ved NUPI. Hovedtema i forskningen hans er utenrikspolitikk, dip...
Implementation of the EU’s crisis response in Ukraine
The objective of this paper is to reflect on the received and perceived EU crisis response in Ukraine, paying specific attention to the security and humanitarian sectors, among the key areas for the EU since the beginning of the crisis/conflict. This research focus is in line with EUNPACK Task 2, aimed at analysing how the EU and its member states are implementing its crisis response on the ground throughout the conflict cycle. Three core assumptions underpin our research focus in this paper.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’: three levels of judicial control over the CFSP
By examining possible forms of judicial control over CFSP at different levels (‘the good, the bad, and the ugly’), this chapter aims to discuss the Court’s approach to the system of judicial control over the CFSP and to provide a holistic picture of possibilities and pitfalls. Having recalled the post-Lisbon developments in the CJEU’s jurisdiction in relation to the CFSP, the present contribution thus asks whether and, if so, to what extent remaining gaps in the Court’s control can be filled by involving other courts: both internally at Member States level, and externally by involving international and/or third countries’ courts. Our main argument is that the Court’s suspicion in relation to alternative judicial oversight may be legitimate. Yet acknowledged gaps in the EU system of judicial remedies in relation to the CFSP ought to be filled for the Union to meet the requirements of the rule of law.