Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 93

1848-5782

decision-making process decision-making process KEY WORDS: mechanism, , EU EU Battlegroups (EUBGs), rapid response, ATHENA added value to the EU in the security and defence area, at least on paper, while so far no EUBG has while so far no EUBG has added value to the EU in the security and defence area, at least on paper, been deployed in the theatre of operations. the EU’s disposal civilian and capabilities for dealing with the crisis spots around the world. disposal civilian and military capabilities for dealing with the crisis spots around the world. the EU’s states’ pledges in November 2004 which gave The EUBG concept originated with the first member its own in order to protect its interests and citizens. The Common Foreign and Security Policy as an citizens. The Common Foreign and Security Policy as an its own in order to protect its interests and play a more significant role in security matters on the expression of EU readiness and willingness to thus putting at international stage led to the creation of the European Security and Defence Policy, After decades of reliance upon NATO in security matters, the EU ought to develop security assets of of assets security to develop EU ought the security matters, in NATO reliance upon decades of After Abstract Abstract Beatrica Šmaguc successful story or a paper tiger? successful story or The EU Battlegroups (EUBGs) – a (EUBGs) The EU Battlegroups ISSN ISSN UDC 355/359:061.1EU CIRR XIX (68) 2013, 93-114 XIX (68) 2013, CIRR The dissolution 2 as an expression of the EU’s readiness and the of expression as an 1 Western Council of Ministers, “”, Bonn, 19 June 1992, point 6, paragraph 4. paragraph 6, point 1992, June 19 Bonn, Declaration”, “Petersberg Union Ministers, of Council European Western The formal name is the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and it was negotiated during the negotiated Union second half of 1991, (TEU) and it was on European name is the Treaty The formal member states. signed on 7 February 1992 in Maastricht and entered into force on 1 November 1993, after on 1 November the EU by ratification force into signed on 7 February and entered 1992 in Maastricht

2 1 timely and better manner. Headline Goal (HHG) in December 1999 the need and the declaration of crisis in a the respond to capability to an EU rapid response in order for the creation of the European Security and Defence Policy thus giving European the creation of the the EU its own military and civilian operational capabilities. The first step in developing the military capabilities the adoption of the Helsinki was forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. Tasks” into the EU of the “Petersberg of the WEU led to incorporation 1997) legal framework (, and a few years later to and Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty (common defence), i.e. in tasks, tasks and tasks of combat humanitarian and rescue At the same time, in June 1992 the WEU Council of Ministers adopted the Ministers adopted of Council WEU 1992 the June in time, same the At the possibility so-called Tasks introducing of using the military Petersberg 5 Article NATO of those than other cases in states WEU the of forces scene, a Common Foreign and Security Policy was introduced. scene, a Common Foreign and Security need for an equal role for the EU in the political the EU in the security area evolved role for and need for an equal Treaty, Maasticht the with and international the on matters security in role significant a play to willingness for crisis management around the world, particularly if the EU wishes to the world, particularly if the around management crisis for So, during the 1990s partner on the global stage. become a the world’s GNP, the EU needs to have instruments at its disposal EU needs to have instruments at world’s GNP, the to promote addition, In best possible manner. its citizens in the its interests and protect responsibility long called Washington has upon Europe to take greater and defence matters were put in the hands of other organizations – were put in the hands and defence matters player that As a global NATO. (WEU) and Union European Western the 450 encompasses about million the and produces a quarter of people In recent decades the European Union played a significant role security tasks in days, those In stage. international the on area economic in the The origins of the EU Battlegroups EU of the origins The

Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 94 Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 95 Union In the 3 ”. 5 the EU now has operational capability acrossthe EU now has operational capability which can be alleviated by the further development of the EU’swhich can be alleviated by the Although in key areas significant qualitative shortfalls remained, 4 , ”. Note “The European Security and Defence Policy: from the to the EU Battlegroups”, Dr the the Helsinki Headline Goal to EU Battlegroups”, from Policy: Security and Defence Note “The European Presidency conclusions, Meeting in Laeken, 14 and 15 December 2001, point 6. in Laeken, Council Meeting conclusions, European Presidency Council, 19 and 20 June 2003, point 56. conclusions, Thessaloniki European Presidency Gerrard Quille, European Parliament, Directorate- for External Policies of the Union, Directorate B, Policy B, Policy of the Union, Directorate External Policies for Directorate-General Parliament, Quille, European Gerrard 5 3 4 from EU-led operations (Concordia in Macedonia and Artemis in Congo),from EU-led operations (Concordia in Macedonia and Artemis in a newduring the June 2004 Council EU member states decided to launch target – the which included the BG Concept. military capabilities, including through the establishment of ECAP Projectmilitary capabilities, including through Groups learned lessons first the and Strategy Security European the of adoption after the full range of Petersberg tasks, limited and constrained by recognisedthe full range of Petersberg tasks, shortfalls next two years significant progress was made only in the area of command and control capabilities. But this did not stop the European Council held in June 2003 from declaring that “ European Council in Laeken in December 2001 concluded that the “ European Council in Laeken in December crisis-management operations is now capable of conducting some A year later in November 2001 a Capability Improvement Conference tookA year later in November 2001 a To address those shortfalls, in Novemberplace but lots of shortfalls remained. Plan (ECAP) was established and the2001 a European Capabilities Action logistics, force survivability and infrastructure as well as command, control,logistics, force survivability and infrastructure surveillance and reconnaissance.communications, computers, intelligence, was more than was needed by the HHG. These commitments were set out needed by the HHG. These commitments was more than was Catalogue”. However, there were alsoin a document called the “Force andsustainability transport, tactical airlifts, strategic as such areas failed each area and in November at the first Capability Commitment Conference Commitment Capability first the at November in and area each their commitment to made. Member states declared initial pledges were about 100 ships, which over 400 combat aircraft and over 100,000 soldiers, line with the HHG and Petersberg Tasks, the EU Military Staff generated the and Petersberg Tasks, the EU Military line with the HHG “Helsinki Headline Catalogue” which specified the required capabilities in Council in December 2000 approved the setting up of a new politico-military 2000 approved the setting up Council in December and Security Committee, EU Council, i.e. the Political structure within the During the year 2000, in and the EU Military Staff. the EU Military Committee Although the HHG was primarily designed for EU member states, it enabled for EU member designed the HHG was primarily Although contributions from non-EU countries too. Based on the HHG, the European troops within 60 days in the crisis area in order to execute an operation within operation an execute to order in area crisis the in days 60 within troops foroperation of area the in sustainable remain to and Tasks Petersberg the (ERRF).Force Reaction Rapid European the called often is force This year. one The main goal of the HHG was to enable the EU by 2003 to deploy 60,000 to deploy EU by 2003 the to enable HHG was of the main goal The

9 10 After a positive After 8 Germany joined this initiative Germany joined 7 In the meantime, the EU launched its first autonomous military rapid military autonomous first its launched EU the meantime, the In 6 EU security and defence - core documents 2004, Volume V, Chaillot Papers 75, Institute for Security Studies, Paris, Security Studies, 75, Institute Paris, for Papers Chaillot V, documents 2004, Volume - core EU security and defence parts: two Affairs split into was the General Council and the GAERC of the Lisbon Treaty, With the force coming into On 30 May 2003 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1484 authorizing of an Interim the the 2003 On 30 May deployment UN Security Council adopted Resolution “The EU should be capable and willing to deploy in an autonomous operation within 15 days to respond to a crisis. to respond to within 15 days operation autonomous in an deploy willing to capable and be EU should “The Member states declared 4 national (France, Italy, UK and Spain) and 9 multinational EUBGs (1. France, Germany, Germany, France, (1. EUBGs multinational 9 and Spain) and UK Italy, (France, national 4 statesMember declared 7. Poland, Germany, Slovakia, and , 8. , and ; Finland Latvia and Lithuania, 8. Sweden, Slovakia, 9.The United Kingdom and Germany, 7. Poland, purification (Cyprus), a water unit (Lithuania), Athensthe capabilities: medical group Netherlands) as niche as well headquarters (France). force of a multinational and deployable and structure (Greece) Sealift Centre Co-ordination the . the Foreign the Netherlands 4. and Finland, and Belgium, 3. Germany, Spain, 2. France and potentially Belgium, Luxembourg and Portugal, Spain, Greece Hungary 6. Italy, and Slovenia, 5 Italy, Austria and the Republic, Czech Germany, February 2005. France was the framework nation. By September 2003 the UN, i.e. MONUC, was reinforced enough to take over over take enough to nation. By September 2003 the UN, reinforced i.e. MONUC, was the framework was France Artemis so Operation ended on 1 September 2003. More security in the region, the overall for the responsibility Artemis page on thedetails under Operation legal EU web basis (http://consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security- defence/eu-operations/completed-eu-operations). on 5 June 2003. The operation plans for militarya thein Operation theand launch to decision for plans operation operation The 2003. June 5 on of in the area deployed were later EU forces weeks adopted on 12 June 2003 and some three DR Congo were About2003. June 6 on operation of in the area arrived already has troops thatis fact theThe first French operation. South Canada, Africa) participated and states non-EU 16 EU and (Brazil, thein operation from 1800 personnel Multinational Emergency Force to Bunia (Ituri region) in order to secure the airport, protect internally displaced the internally airport, secure to protect order in region) (Ituri Bunia to Force Emergency Multinational UN mission in DR Congo (MONUC - Mission de until the in camps civilians in the and reinforcement persons town Congo). The EU Council adopted du Joint Action des Nations Unies en République démocratique l’Organisation United Nations, or regional organisations acting under the UN mandate, could arrive or be reinforced.” Franco- or be reinforced.” acting under the could arrive UN mandate, organisations United Nations, or regional Antonio: (page 281) in Missiroli, in Security and Defence Cooperation European Strengthening British Declaration: 67, Institute for Papers Chaillot IV, Volume documents, core defence: Copenhagen Brussels: European to From December 2003. Security Studies, Paris, The aim should be coherent and credible battle-group sized forces, each around 1500 troops, offered by a single offered by 1500 troops, around each sized forces, battle-group and credible The aim should be coherent transport and sustainability. with appropriate package, nation force a multinational or framework nation or through in deployed be would They mandate. a ChapterVII under the operate to capacity have should forces These the stabilise to a situation or otherwise the to UN request from response a short-term meet need until peace-keepers Department, page 19.

10 8 9 7 6 in November 2004, when 13 EUBGs and niche capabilities were offered. that was adopted by the European Council in June 2004. The initial EUBG Capabilities pledges were made at the Military Commitment Conference Military Staff to develop the EU BG concept (adopted by the EUMC on ministers in April defence from 2004)followed by support 14 June and Headline Goal 2010 the of became a key element 2004, a battlegroup reaction from the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) and External Relations Council the General Affairs from reaction EU the to Military Committee EU by the 2004 and a request March 24 on response concept, i.e. the EUBG concept. “The battlegroups EU leading nations published in February 2004 and three paper”. thought for food UK/France/Germany concept response operation, Artemis, in the Ituri region of the Democratic Republic Democratic the of region Ituri in the Artemis, operation, response the future rapid of template for as a sort which later served of Congo, in February 2003 and further elaborated at the first the for Franco-British mentioned was “battlegroup” summit term the where in 2003, November time. The EUBG concept was initiated at the Franco-British summit in Le Touquet Touquet Le in summit Franco-British the at initiated was concept EUBG The

Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 96 Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 97

13 and DSACEUR and 12

14 (known as the Berlin Plus agreement), was finished on 11 11 Details about Berlin Plus agreements can be found in “EU-NATO: THE FRAMEWORK FOR PERMANENT RELATIONS FOR PERMANENT RELATIONS THE FRAMEWORK in “EU-NATO: can be found about Berlin Plus agreements Details Deputy Supreme Allied Command Europe. The DSACEUR is designated Operation Commander, while the EU Commander, is designated Operation The DSACEUR Allied Command Europe. Deputy Supreme Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons. Europe Headquarters Allied Powers Supreme The Framework agreement is actually letters exchanged between the High Representative for Common Foreign and Common Foreign for theHigh Representative between exchanged letters actually is agreement The Framework AND BERLIN PLUS” on the EU web page: on the http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/03-11-11%20 EU web AND BERLIN PLUS” Force Commander and EU Force Headquarters deployed in the theatre or the in the EU Component Commands may Headquarters theatre deployed Commander and EU Force Force states. EU member In adition, the or by EU Military Staff up a cell at (EUMS) set NATO by either be provided while and capabilities, assets on NATO drawing of EU operations the preparation improve to SHAPE in order up a permanent liaison office set within the EUMS. NATO Security Policy and the Secretary General of the of Council of theand theSolana, and the Javier EU, Secretary Secretary General General Security Policy Robertson. Lord NATO, Military Capability Commitment Conference, Brussels, 22 November 2004: Declaration on European military on European 2004: Declaration 22 November Brussels, Military Capability Commitment Conference, capabilities, pages 9-10.

14 13 12 11 twice in EU-led operations (Concordia in Macedonia and Althea in Bosnia in Althea and Macedonia in (Concordia operations EU-led in twice and Herzegovina). operations. Berlin Plus agreements also include an of agreed exchange procedure of classified information as wellarrangements. as EU-NATO So consultation far Berlin Plus agreements have been applied only as OHQ and Operational Commander in the EU-led operation and the and EU-led operation in the as OHQ and Operational Commander its military capabilities assets and for NATO certain possibility using of March 2003. Based on Berlin Plus agreements, to NATO planning capabilities, it to plan its own military which enabled the EU gained access SHAPE NATO possibility engaging of the operations: the establishment of their strategic partnership in crisis management, while in crisis management, partnership strategic their establishment of the a framework i.e. cooperation, EU-NATO for framework a comprehensive agreement EU-NATO relations resulted in a joint declaration on 16 EU-NATO relations resulted in a December 2002 Policy) on and Defence Security European the on Declaration (NATO-EU defence and military cooperation. In the late 1990s the EU decided to decided EU the 1990slate the In and military cooperation. defence military operations, capacities for develop its own to and WEU dissolve the but without unnecessary duplication. The need for developing firmer crisis management. The origin of the Berlin Plus agreement lay in the 1996 for tool EU was the which WEU, the and NATO between arrangement NATO capabilities and assets for EU-led military operations. The Berlin Plus and NATO EU the between agreements of is actually a set agreement in organizations two the among cooperation basis for provides a which At the same time as fulfilling the HHG, the European Union was negotiating negotiating was Union European the HHG, the fulfilling as time same the At to access ensure to agreement) Plus Berlin (the NATO with agreement an Battlegroup Battlegroup Coordination Conferences (usually held in April/May September/October). and Thereafter contributions have been announced twice a year through the year through twice a announced been have contributions Thereafter This force package is composed of “combined arms “combined of composed is package force This 15 (Figure 1). The EUBGs could be formed by a single EU member 16 EU Battlegroup Concept, Council of the European Union, 13618/06 EXT 1, Brussels, 27 April 2007, point 8. Concept, Council of the European EU Battlegroup Union, 13618/06 EXT 1, Brussels, 27 April 2007, point 8 Concept, Council of the European EU Battlegroup Berlin%20Plus%20press%20note%20BL.pdf Berlin%20Plus%20press%20note%20BL.pdf

15 16 Figure 1 – A generic battlegroup package Figure 1 – A generic battlegroup and its generic composition is about 1,500 troops. But the structure of EUBGs is not fixed; it depends on the specific requirements of the operation and the package. BG their constitute to how on decide that those are states member and logistics” and nation” “framework so-called a with states member of group a by or state battalion sized force and reinforced with Combat Support and Combat ServiceCombat and Support Combat with reinforced and force sized battalion ((F) Headquarters Force a with associated be “must it and elements” Support lift strategic as such enablers, strategic and operational pre-identified and HQ) package which has to be “(minimum) militarily effective, credible, rapidlyhas to be “(minimum) militarily effective, package which or for the initial phase “capable of stand-alone operations deployable” and operations”. larger of The EUBGs are a specific form of rapid reaction forces, or rather a force characteristics The EUBG structure, purpose and main main and purpose structure, EUBG The

Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 98 Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 99 20 22 On the other hand, an EUBG led by 18 ; and 3) the EU Operation Centre, staffed by a 21 but for the strategic and military command aspects they and military command aspects but for the strategic 17 while an Italian-Hungary-Slovenian EUBG, declared for standby 19 The EU Operations Centre is not a standing HQ. There is on a permanent basis only staff is on a permanent basis only a standing is not HQ. There Centre in Civ/Mil Cell responsible The EU Operations EUMC Report PSC on the to Outcome of BGCC 1/12, 8975/12 ADD 1, Brussels, 26 April 2011. Three of them have already been used: Mont Valérien HQ for Operation Artemis in 2003 and EUFOR Operation in DRC HQ for been used: Mont Valérien already of them have Three Web page of the . page Armed Forces. of the Swedish Web Institute of BULLETIN No. 3 (79), January 11, 2010, The Polish Terlikowski, Marcin by EU Battle Group Polish-led Sweden as a framework nation contributed the majority of troops: a mechanized infantry a mechanized light battalion with nation contributed the majority two of troops: as a framework Sweden Atalanta (from December 2008 onwards). Atalanta (from TChad/RCA in 2008; Postdam HQ for Operation EUFOR DRC in 2006; and Northwood HQ for EUNAVFOR in 2006; and Northwood EUFOR DRC EUNAVFOR HQ for Operation HQ for in 2008; Postdam TChad/RCA pages 37-38. International Affairs. and militaryand services,medical Norway for lifts, personnel; police personnel contributed logistics strategic and Furthermore, all participating countries contributed protection. an infantry force for platoon while provided The EU Battlegroup Armed and Ready? HQ. Jan Joel Andersson: staff HQ and Forward Operation to personnel Studies, Policy European Institute for Swedish Report No. 2, March/2006, Battlegroup, Concept and the Nordic companies, one heavy company and a logistics company, as a core unit as well as personnel for Combat Support for as personnel unit as well as a core and a logisticscompanies, company, company one heavy Units and Combat Service Support; combat support for contributed personnel mortar elements: a heavy Finland and a and Nuclear detachment (CBRN) detection Chemical Biological Radiological a platoon-sized platoon, combat service and for Company support logistic elements: intelligence ISTAR unit in the Swedish-Finnish joint

Department External Policies, October 2007 EP/EXPO/B/SEDE/FWC/2006-10/Lot4/01 October 2007 Policies, External Department 22 20 21 18 19 small core team of eight and ready for activation since 1 January 2007. small core team of eight and ready 17 OHQs declared by member states (France – Mont Valérien/Paris, Germany (France – Mont OHQs declared by member states United and the Celle/Rome Larissa, Italy – Cento – – Potsdam, Greece ) Northwood – Kingdom options: 1) use of NATO structures according to the Berlin Plus agreement of 2003, in which case the SHAPE will serve as OHQ; 2) use of one of five 2,588 personnel in total (Italy – 2,100; Hungary – 260 and Slovenia – 228). 2,588 personnel in total (Italy – 2,100; Headquarters (OHQ) are three With regard to the Operations there Latvia), in the period 1 July – 31 December 2012, a force package of was set up as Poland that was on standby in the period 1 January – 30 June 2010 on standby in the period 1 January Poland that was was 1,800 made up of some (about 700 personnel from Poland, about 540 from 180 Germany and about personnel each from Slovakia, and Lithuania (about 150), Kingdom. United with the worked example, the that was on standby from 1 January until January 1 from standby on was that Battlegroup Nordic the example, 2,300), (about Sweden 2,800 soldiers from 2008 was made up of 30 June Finland (about 200), Estonia (about 50), and Norway (about 80) broader spectrum of capabilities. Therefore, the generic structure could could structure generic the Therefore, capabilities. of spectrum broader or logistic air, as maritime, such enablers by different reinforced be For more. even or troops 2,500 of total a reach could EUBGs the so others, Such flexibility facilitates the EUBG Force Generation and enables a Source: Source: THE BATTLE GROUPS: CATALYST FOR A EUROPEAN DEFENCE POLICY, Briefing Paper, Policy to plan an operation) is within 5 days and full operational capability (i.e. capability to run an operation) is within 20 run an operation) capability (i.e. capability to and full operational is within 5 days plan an operation) to 2013 http://www.consilium.europa. page on 27 March EU web 2,000 soldiers. of up to an operation for days eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/070228-EU_OpsCentre.pdf for maintaining the capability to activate the operations centre at any time. Initial operating capability (i.e. capability Initial operating time. any at centre the maintaining the operations activate capability to for that the EU is able to undertake two simultaneous rapid response operations.to undertake able that the EU is i.e. reaching the initial operational capability (IOC), i.e. a minimum of one initial operational capability (IOC), i.e. reaching the BG was constantly on standby for six months, and the year 2007 was set as the year for reaching the EUBGs’ full operational capability (FOC), meaning EUBG is not meant to be used for current operations or for solving old crises the EU rapid response one. In the process of building such as the capacity, the year 2005 was the targeted year for setting up the first EUBG, to 10 days) in order to avoid the escalation and/or to set the conditions for to avoid the escalation and/or to 10 days) in order operations. So, an case of timely and troop-demanding robust troops in the in geographic terms, the EUBG is supposed to be deployed in the crisis area up to 6,000 km away from Brussels. In addition, an EUBG is dedicated to a at very short notice (up readiness for deployment new crisis which demands and stay in the area of operations for 30 days with the possibility of extending its with the possibility for 30 days in the area of operations and stay Speaking resupplying capacities. on the to 120 days, depending deployment launching launching the EUBG-size operation within five days after theapproval of the supposedare troops EUBG and Council the by Concept Management Crisis thereafterdays 10 of period the in operations of area the in deployed be to Regarding the time frame, the EU should be able to adopt the decision on decision the adopt to able be should EU the frame, time the Regarding

Vol.XVIII, No. 66 - 2012 XIX (68) - 2013 100 Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 101

24 and 43(1). 23 In addition to that, there are two main conditions that main conditions two are there that, In addition to 25 For further details see Council of Ministers, “Petersberg Declaration”, Bonn, 19 June Declaration”, “Petersberg Union Ministers, Council of European furtherFor see Western details Article 43 point 1 of the Lisbon Treaty stipulates: “The tasks referred to in Article to the of which 42(1), in the course stipulates: referred “The tasks Article 43 point 1 of the Lisbon Treaty The Lisbon Treaty in Article 42 point 1 says: “The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part in Article policy shall be an integral “The common security and defence 42 point 1 says: The Lisbon Treaty 1992, 6, para 4, European Security Strategy, page 12 and Article 43 of the Lisbon Treaty 2009. page 12 and Articlethe 43 of Lisbon Treaty Security Strategy, 4, European 1992, 6, para Union may use civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue rescue humanitarianand militaryand Unioncivilian use may operations, disarmament joint include shall means, in of combat forces tasks tasks, and peace-keeping militarytasks, advice and assistance conflict tasks, prevention crisis management, and post-conflict including peace-making stabilisation. the All these contribute to may tasks fight in their territories.” supporting countries in combating terrorism including by third against terrorism, civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict militaryand civilian UnionthemThe use may peace-keeping, the assets. outside missions on Union for with the principles of the international security in accordance United Nations and strengthening Charter. prevention the Member States.” by The performance of these using capabilities provided shall be undertaken tasks of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on capacity drawing the Union withoperational an It shall provide security policy. and of thecommon foreign

25 24 23 an EUBG is up to 120 days. of the robust troops. The duration of the EUBG use of maximum foreseeable since the engagement condition, as a third considered could be for rapid reaction. In the case of the latter, the EUBG could be employed be could EUBG the latter, the of case the In rapid reaction. for as an advanced or operation, in a short-term force as a stand-alone deployment for conditions facilitating the operation in a long-term force the operation. the have to be met to enable EUBG deployment: a new crisis and the need In this context we should mention that each engagement of the EU mention that each engagement we should In this context legitimacy of UN asks for not, rapid response or whether military forces, mentioned EU military tasks are to be found in one place, in the Lisbon place, found in one EU military tasks are to be mentioned Treaty articles 42(1) including peacemaking) and tasks defined bycountries thethird the to support operations, disarmament 2003(joint Strategy European Security above- Since 2009 the reforms). and security sector in combating terrorism general. At the beginning, the definition of EUBGs’ missions and tasks were were tasks and missions EUBGs’ of definition the beginning, the At general. tasks, and rescue Tasks (humanitarian so-called Petersberg the based on in crisis management, and tasks of combat forces peacekeeping tasks The exact aims and tasks of the EUBGs are not defined in any document. EU military based on the missions They are in operations tasks set up for and Missions, Tasks and Preparations and Tasks Missions, - - - - - 26 have a role of an initial entry force as an advance force to the to advance force as an force initial entry an of have a role Bridging operations in which the EU would support the troops already to take operational responsibility foron the ground, to reinforce them or enable the existing troops to regroup; a specific geographic sector to Initial entry rapid where the EU forces would response operation, tile environment; inhelp could EUBG the where operations humanitarian to Assistance protecting aid workers in the field. delivering humanitarian aid or in tivities and maintaining security and stability by monitoring cease by monitoring stability and security maintaining tivities and fires and withdrawals or providing military assistance for third coun and security sector reform; tries in need of institution building where the environment, Evacuation operations in a non-permissive hos a from non-combatants of evacuation the in assist could EUBG disarmament operations, enforce embargoes and/or supervise and/or embargoes enforce disarmament operations, efforts; counter-proliferation advice to third countries, and military Stabilization, reconstruction where an EUBG might be tasked for traditional peacekeeping ac Separation of parties by forces requires direct combat engage combat direct requires by forces parties of Separation ment, so an EUBG could be engaged in peacemaking activities or communication; vital lines of for securing conduct to tasked be could EUBG the which in prevention, Conflict - - - - Detailed in: Jan Joel Andersson: Armed and Ready? The EU Battlegroup Concept and the Nordic Battlegroup, Battlegroup, Concept and the Nordic EU Battlegroup The Armed and Ready? Jan Joel Andersson: in: Detailed http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/MilitaryCapabilitiesFC06backgroundNov06_en.pdf http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/MilitaryCapabilitiesFC06backgroundNov06_en.pdf background Catalogue 2006, EU Council Secretariat Military of European Capabilities: The Force Development 2006. November paper, Report No. 2, March/2006, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, pages 34-35 and EU web page: Studies, pages and EU web 34-35 Policy European Institute for Swedish Report No. 2, March/2006, 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

26 pointed out three main situations for EUBG employment: pointed out three main situations latter two perfectly, although none of the others can be excluded. latter two perfectly, although none Based on the above-mentioned scenarios, G. Lindstrom (2007: 18-19) If we analyse these five scenarios we can see that the EUBG matches the matches EUBG the that see can we scenarios five these analyse we If 2006 five illustrative scenarios for possible use of EU military forces were set up: set were forces military EU of use possible for scenarios illustrative five 2006 In order to better prepare EU military capabilities for action, in Novemberaction, for capabilities military EU prepare to better In order

Vol.XVIII, No. 66 - 2012 XIX (68) - 2013 102 Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 103 and , 2010 Haiti, 2011 for 27 29 therefore a contributing member a contributing therefore 28 ) but so far not a single EUBG has ever been 30 and scale requiring rapid response. requiring rapid and scale larger ones that follow on; follow ones that larger limited time of operations case of the in operations, Stand-alone - - The idea was rejected by the EUMC based on the fact that EUBGs are not meant to be used as reserve forces. forces. be used as reserve meant to not the EUMC based on the that by fact EUBGs are rejected The idea was In July 2006, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) required UN mission assistance during and after prior to, required of Congo (DRC) Republic 2006, theIn July Democratic Lindstrom G: Enter the EU Battlegroups, Chaillot Paper No 97, EUISS, Februarypages 2007, 18-19. Paper Chaillot G: Enter the EU Battlegroups, Lindstrom 2009, 15336/09, Brussels, 4 November and Usability of the the EU Battlegroups, Document: Flexibility Increasing The reason could also be the fact that EUFOR Althea is not a new crisis spot but an old one. Hatzigeorgopoulos, could also be the that fact EUFOR but an old one. Hatzigeorgopoulos, crisis spot Althea a new The reason is not 56, June Security Review European Security, Institute for Defence, in European Myrto: of EU Battlegroups The Role 2012, page 5. standby but political leaders considered that the situation did not ask for a rapid response while this mission was while this mission was response that a rapid the ask for situation did not considered but political leaders standby G: Enter in: Lindstrom details last and because the longer More than mission would in advance, 120 days. known No 97, EUISS, February 2007, pages 57-58. Paper Chaillot the EU Battlegroups, point 6. At had one EU BG on that time Germany 1,500 troops. approximately for was national elections. The requirement

30 29 27 28 forces were sent to reinforce international forces in during the forces were sent to reinforce period in Serbia electoral is only there blank or years remain recent slots for deployed. Furthermore, , 2008 for the Eastern DR Congo Eastern 2008the Lebanon, for for Libya and 2012 for EUFOR Althea whose on the occasion of support Since 2007 when the EUBG concept reached the FOC stage, deployment deployment stage, FOC the reached concept EUBG the when 2007 Since of EUBGs has been considered a few times (in 2006 for DR Congo and interoperability. In other words, national military forces for both (the EU (the both for forces military national words, other In interoperability. single set of forces. and NATO) come from the same demanding training process and certification at the end. Regarding the training standards, EUBG contributing nations rely on the NATO standards further possible duplication and promoting wherever thus avoiding be able to act during the standby period each highly the EUBG pass to has and is advance in years) five declaredto three (usually enough long the coordination among the participating nations, and the EU Military nations, and the EU Military among the participating the coordination Committee and EU Military Staff mainly monitor the or standards and to meet the demanding requirements process. In order EUBG certification the unit level and the framework nation for training and certification of control command, of area the especially in package, force whole the facilitating is limited to EU institutions of role The and communication. are national responsibilities too, national are state is responsible for training and certification of its commitments at Member states’ commitment to battlegroups is on a voluntary basis. basis. voluntary a is on battlegroups to commitment states’ Member Consequently, their training, equipment, evaluation and certification Spain vacant vacant vacant vacant vacant Greece II semester Great Britain Great Britain France, Belgium Luxembourg, Spain Luxembourg, Spain Latvia, Netherlands Italy, Romania, Turkey Italy, Romania, Turkey Spain, France, Portugal Italy, Hungary, Slovenia Italy, Hungary, Slovenia Ireland, Croatia, FYROM Czech Republic, Slovakia Germany, France, Belgium, Germany, France, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy Czech Republic, Netherlands Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal France, Belgium, Luxembourg Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, Lithuania, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Declared EUBGs from 2007 to 2018 Declared EUBGs Italy Ireland France vacant vacant vacant vacant vacant vacant vacant Slovakia Hungary I semester Austria, Latvia Ireland, Croatia France, Belgium Lithuania, Latvia Great Britain, Netherlands Poland, Germany, France Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal Italy, Spain, Greece, France, Belgium, Luxembourg Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Finland Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Spain, Germany, France, Portugal Spain, Germany, France, Poland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Latvia, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria Greece, Cyprus, Romania, 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Year Figure 2 – Declared EUBGs from 2007 to 2018 – Declared EUBGs Figure 2 one (instead of two) EUBG declared for a certain period. period. for a certain EUBG declared of two) (instead one

Vol.XVIII, No. 66 - 2012 XIX (68) - 2013 104 Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 105 where contributions are provided by participating are where contributions 31 The ATHENA mechanism was set up by the Council of the European Union on 1 March 2004 and amended after Union on 1 March the Council of the up by set European was mechanism The ATHENA that a few times, most recently in December 2011. times, most recently that a few

BGCC 2/12 in EU document 14011/12 ADD1 14011/12 2/12 in EU document BGCC External Policies, European Parliament, October 2007 and the EUMC Report to PSC on the Outcome of the Outcome to PSC on 2007 October Parliament, Policies, European External Report the EUMC and 31 chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) protection, (satellite images). If the Council decides so, the expenditure for transport for expenditure Council decides so, the (satellite images). If the capabilities (demining, and critical theatre-level of forces and lodging hired personnel, Force Headquarters (FHQ) deployment and lodging) Force hired personnel, medical (infrastructure, services in and those for forces as a whole theatre, medical evacuation, identification, acquisition of information The ATHENA mechanism basically mechanism covers incremental costs for The ATHENA costs, including travel, and running headquarters (HQ implementation locally systems, administration, public information, information computer operation expenditure (Article 41(3) paragraph 2 TEU). operation expenditure (Article 41(3) not provide finance for EU military operations. Furthermore, if a member (constructive declaration and makes a formal abstains in a vote state respective the of financing the to contribute to obliged not is it abstention) by unanimity. It should be mentioned that has opted out of the by unanimity. It should be mentioned and Defence Policy on military matters, so it does Security EU Common nations based on a GNI scale. The ATHENA mechanism is ATHENA managed under nations based on a GNI scale. The of a representative composed of a special committee of authority the decisions and takes operation participating in the state member each The operating costs of EU military operations are financed throughmechanism ATHENA the Union’s budget covers only administrative costs for EU institutions (Article institutions EU only administrative costs for covers budget Union’s 41(1) for civilian TEU) and operating costs missions 41(2) (Article TEU), while charged. participating states are case of military engagement in the EU operations having military and defence they fall”, which means principle “the costs lie where according to the implications are financed they are almost entirely financed by participating member states. The Financial aspect Financial Sources: Sources: “The Battle Groups: Catalyst for a European Defence Policy”, BriefingPaper, Policy Department

32 34 Bearing this inthis Bearing 33 and called for “a 36 . In this regard, the Lisbon 35 Article 99 of the European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the implementation of the of 22 November Common resolution Article Parliament 99 of the European See Lisbon Treaty, Article 41. See Lisbon Treaty, European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs on the EU’s military DRAFT REPORT state and of play Committee on Foreign structures: Parliament, European More details in: Annex III, COUNCIL DECISION 2011/871/CFSP establishing a mechanism to administer establishing to DECISION 2011/871/CFSP the a mechanism III, COUNCIL in: Annex details More No 97, EUISS, February 2007, page 26. Paper Chaillot G: Enter the EU Battlegroups, Lindstrom Security and Defence Policy (based on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Parliament the the Council to European (based on the Annual Report from Policy Security and Defence future prospects (2012/2319(INI)), Rapporteur: Marietta Giannakou, point 16. (2012/2319(INI)), Rapporteur: Giannakou, Marietta prospects future financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military having Unionfinancing implications operations (Athena), or defence of the 19 common costs of European December 2011, Official Union L 343 of 23.12.2011. Journal of the European

36 34 35 32 33 this way, the European Parliament has recently supported the adjustment ofthis way, the European Parliament of common costs” ATHENA to “increase the proportion is encouraging the changes in the to improving the principle of fair burden-sharing. Inview operations with a current way of financing EU military Treaty wording was, unfortunately, quite unclear, especially about its addedunclear, especially about quite Treaty wording was, unfortunately, mechanism and so far nothing has beenvalue in reference to the ATHENA even the European Parliamentundertaken. Apart from other stakeholders, for urgent financing of initiatives in the CFSP framework, to improve the speed the improve to framework, CFSP the in initiatives of financing urgent for and efficiency of EU action, and for tasks within TEU Article 42(1)and Article be charged. 43 when the Union budget cannot Financing EU military operations was recognized as a problem even in theFinancing EU military operations was the establishing of a start-up fundLisbon Treaty and subsequently it predicted groups (not only BG but all military forces), put on stand-by on a voluntary the principle of fair burden-sharing.” and rotational basis, is contrary to to agree with the view of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreignto agree with the view of the European battle- the to principle fall’ they where lie ‘costs the “applying that Affairs the standby period are estimated et about 38 million euros. are estimated et about 38 million the standby period the role of leading or many member states do not take mind, no wonder has One concept. EUBG the in role larger a even not and nation framework authorities calculated that from 2005 to 2008 the costs of leading the Nordic that from 2005 to 2008 the costs authorities calculated with associated costs and euros million 240 approximately were Battlegroup country covers costs for equipment, salaries, training in the preparatory for equipment, salaries, training country covers costs period, certification and transportationSwedishperiod. standby the during costs all for goes same The operation. of its troops to the area of Applying the aforementioned on the EUBGs means that each participating each that means EUBGs the on aforementioned the Applying However, the costs covered through ATHENA rise up to 10% of the total the 10% of to up rise ATHENA through covered costs the However, costs for certain operations. For financing EUBG engagement the same be applied. rules would storage and destruction of weapons) could also be covered by ATHENA. covered also be could weapons) of destruction and storage

Vol.XVIII, No. 66 - 2012 XIX (68) - 2013 106 Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 107 38 that 39 Also, the EP assumes Also, 37 National caveats mean the restriction that some countries place on the use of their forces. Caveats are imposed are Caveats that some countries place on the mean the National use of their restriction caveats forces. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs on the EU’s military DRAFT REPORT state and of play Committee on Foreign structures: Parliament, European European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs on the EU’s military DRAFT REPORT state and of play Committee on Foreign structures: Parliament, European to serve in the more hostile southern areas of the country), restriction of use of forces in CIMIC-type missions or civil of the serve country),to hostile southern of use of forces areas in the more restriction and their impact on the Army CAVEATS” John, FISERA Miloslav: “NATIONAL BROPHY missions, etc. reconstruction of the Republic. Czech unilaterally by the political authorities of each nation, not by, nor in consultation with, NATO or the multinational nor in consultation with, NATO the political authorities by, nation, not by of each unilaterally of their allowing not units, the on combat roles a restriction It could be: mission. of the foreign charge commander in or theoutside not - Afghanistan (Kabul) capitalcity ISAF in serve to example certaina (for outside theirforces area future prospects (2012/2319(INI)), Rapporteur: Marietta Giannakou, point 16. (2012/2319(INI)), Rapporteur: Giannakou, Marietta prospects future point 21. (2012/2319(INI)), Rapporteur: Giannakou, Marietta prospects future Common Foreign and Security Policy) (12562/2011 - 2012/2138(INI)). and Security Policy) Common Foreign

39 38 states, the decision regarding the employment of military forces is made military forces of employment the decision regarding states, the 37 reduce the possibility thus making an impact on of the use of forces and the scope of the EUBGs’ usability. In most countries, if not all EU member EUBGs to a very challenging stage. Concerning the national levels, we decision process usual parliamentarian the only in mind not bear have to also that requires certain time but so-called caveats national A large number of actors are involved in the decision-making process A large number of actors are involved EU level. This brings the usability on the national as well as on the of the while on the other hand member states have to decide on a national a on decide to states have member hand other the while on level whether to participate or not. is pretty tight and lots of work is needed. On the one hand, the EU has to EU has the hand, one the On is needed. work and lots of tight is pretty react, to in which manner and the operation the launching decide on to the provisions of intergovernmental cooperation and thus consensus. thus and cooperation intergovernmental provisions of the to The situation with the EUBGs is even more complex due to the need for period escalating crisis. So, the reaction rapid response to the potentially means that the whole decision-making process is more complicated, complicated, is more whole decision-making process means that the subject are concerned matters the perspective that especially the from Having no army, the EU relies on the member states’ contributions which states’ contributions member the on EU relies army, the Having no EU decision-making process EU decision-making a full coverage of costs when battle-groups are used”. are battle-groups when of costs coverage a full as preparation operations, such linked to military costs that are not “that any EU budget”. be charged to the could costs of battle-groups, and stand-by significant expansion of the common costs for rapid reaction operations, up to up operations, reaction rapid for costs common the of expansion significant CMC is 41 When a certain crisis draws the attention of the PSC and it of the attention crisis draws the a certain When 40 The tasks of the PSC are defined by Article 25 of the Treaty on European Union. They include monitoring the monitoring include Union. They on European Article definedby of theThe tasks PSC are of the 25 Treaty Björkdahl Annika and Strömvik Maria: The decision-making process behind launching an ESDP crisis management launching behind Maria: The decision-making process and Strömvik Björkdahl Annika operation, DIIS Brief, April 2008, page 3. operation, international situation, drafting opinions of policy for the Council, monitoring implementation of agreed policies and international situation, drafting the implementation Council, monitoring opinions of policy for of agreed other in: Council Decision of 22 January committees. Details guidelines on CFSP for 2001 establishing providing Union (2001/71/CFSP). and Security Committee of the European the Political

41 40 (CONOPS) and the Operation Plan (OPLAN), as well as for the Council’s for as well as (CONOPS) and the Operation Plan (OPLAN), appointing the concurrently on launching the operation, Joint Action an Initiating Military Directive (IMD), which translates the CD into military into CD the translates (IMD), which Military Directive Initiating an as same time the serves at and Commander Operation the for guidance Operations of Concept the documents, planning other two for platform a decides to act (CD – Council Decision) and at the same time the EUMC, EUMC, the time same the at Council Decision) and (CD – act decides to i.e. a planning directive for the operation, works on EUMS, backed by the recommendations regarding the potential operational commander operational potential the regarding recommendations by the EUMS under the direction of and headquarters (HQ), is drafted the EUMC and guidance of the PSC. Based on the MSO, the Council Military Strategic Option, a document that comprises risk and feasibility Military Strategic Option, a document requirements force structures, and control assessments, command and the identification of forces available for deployment, as well as adopted by the Council and constitutes the basis for developing strategic developing basis for the constitutes and Council by the adopted civilian military (MSO), police (PSO) or (CSO). A can be options that Management Concept (CMC) that contains the political Management Concept (CMC) that interests of the politico-strategic options for EU, the aims and objectives of the operation, responding to the respective crisis and a possible strategy. exit and ESDP. concludes that EU action is step is needed, the next drawing up a Crisis The Political and Security Committee (PSC) consists of the member the of consists (PSC) Committee Security and Political The and is responsible meets at least twice a week states’ ambassadors, CFSP on decision-making day-to-day and crisis situations managing for defence implications. defence implications. decision-making process includes the Political and Security Committee process includes the Political and decision-making Military Staff (EUMS) and Council (EUMC), EU Committee (PSC), EU Military military and with action EU cases of main decision-making bodies in as the At the EU level At the EU process is decision-making the with the closely connected The papers. more even players and includes many and process planning defined frequency meetingof as well as meetings. extraordinary their procedure recalling for by parliaments, which as we all know have their schedule and strictly and strictly their schedule have all know as we which by parliaments,

Vol.XVIII, No. 66 - 2012 XIX (68) - 2013 108 Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 109 42 Source: Naert Frederik Legal Aspects of EU Military Operations, Journal of International Peacekeeping 15 (2011), Naert Legal Aspects of EU Military Journal of International Peacekeeping Source: Operations, Frederik 218-242.

42 acceptable for EU members is hard to say. In any case, it has to be taken EU members is hard to say. In any case, acceptable for into consideration sooner or later. latter possibility would definitely have a positive impact on rapid reaction rapid on impact positive a have definitely would possibility latter it would be whether but reaction, for time possibilities the while reducing So far all EU operations have been under the UN mandate. It depends mandate. UN the under have been far all EU operations So there whether or too future the for valid will be it whether members EU on The mandate. UN without react would EU the when situation a be could Furthermore, the UN mandate is a sensitive issue for the European Union. Union. European the sensitive issue for is a mandate UN the Furthermore, personnel have to enter the area of operation – a pretty demanding the area of operation personnel have to enter EU administration and consensus-based task, bearing in mind the huge matters. decision in defence and military CMC and launching the operation. It also means that 10 days after the CMC and launching the operation. decisionregarding the launch of the operation at least the first EUBG Speaking in the context of EUBG deployment it only means that five there days are between the two main Council decisions: adoption of strategic direction of the operation, including the assessment regarding strategic direction of the operation, its refocusing or termination. a Force Headquarters (FHQ) deployed in the area of operation. When When of operation. (FHQ) deployed in the area a Force Headquarters the launch decision to takes the Council is approved, the OPLAN the and exercises political control PSC the operation, the During operation. national OHQs put at the EU’s disposal by Britain, France, Germany, Italy EU level, an military operational the At OpsCentre. EU the or Greece and operation or an EUBG operation will be led by a Force Commander from of the CONOPS and OPLAN until the Council designates the OHQ that will OHQ that the designates Council until the OPLAN and CONOPS the of lead the operation. In this regard, the EU could designate one of the five Plan (OPLAN), which describes in detail each aspect of the operation. the of aspect detail each describes in which (OPLAN), Plan capacities at OHQ planning mission asks for a for planning detailed Since facilitating preparation of role the has Centre Operation EU the stage this Two of them are crucial: the Concept of Operations (CONOPS), which gives gives which (CONOPS), Operations of Concept the crucial: are them of Two Operation and the operation, of the on the implementation an overview Before Before the EU Council adopts the Joint Action, the UN mission mandate Once operation. the EU legal basis launching issued to give a has to be for documents. planning operational for OpCdr is responsible the appointed, Operation Operation Commander (OpCdr) and deciding on the financial aspects. concept asks for the dedication of a huge amount of money for building for of money amount a huge of dedication the asks for concept and preparing the EUBGs and even more money for their eventual investments in research, development and procurement in the defence in the procurement and development in research, investments sector. In contrast to cutting down the budget, participation in the EUBG The economic crisis has put each country’s budget under great pressure. great under budget country’s each crisis has put economic The the is by decreasing problem address this way to common most The public budget, especially its defence part. That leads to cutting down successful while on the other hand it was a failure. successful while on the other hand its predecessor the ERRF or many other EU initiatives? Does it still have EU many other or ERRF the its predecessor any value or has it already failed? The outcomes of the EUBG concept could be evaluated twofold – to a certain extent the EUBG initiative was tremendous start for something that did not get practical confirmation after six years of existence and beside an empty slot in that ended with the first half of 2012! Will the EUBG concept become a paper tiger like November 2004 and reached full operational capabilities full operational in January reached 2004 and November 2007 putting at the EU’s disposal semester. What a two of them in each The EUBG concept initiated at the Franco-British summit in in Le February Touquet 2003 quickly resulted in the first member states’ pledges in true added value to the EU capacity for reaction in the international hot international the in reaction for capacity EU the to value added true spots. France, Germany and the UK, but other member states were more than than more states were member other but Germany and the UK, France, was truly area ESDP the in development speed of The them. follow willing to impressive, especially in relation to the EUBG concept that represented capabilities for dealing with the crisis spots around the world. Great Great world. the spots around crisis dealing with the capabilities for security and defence matters were of the EU’s development in promoters first step in that direction was creating the Common Foreign and Security Security of the European creation time led to the short Policy which in a thus putting at the EU’s disposal and Defence Policy civilian and military role in the political, and above all, security and defence area while relying all, security and defence area political, and above the in role the development time for At the end of the 1990s came the on NATO. The citizens. and its interests protect to order assets in security its own of For decades the EU cherished the discrepancy between its economic between discrepancy the cherished EU the decades For significancewithin the international community and almost insignificant Concluding remarks Concluding

Vol.XVIII, No. 66 - 2012 XIX (68) - 2013 110 Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 111 On the other hand, neither have the forces the have neither hand, other the On 43 Hatzigeorgopoulos, Myrto: The Role of EU Battlegroups in European Defence, Institute for Security, European European Security, Institute for Defence, in European Myrto: of EU Battlegroups Hatzigeorgopoulos, Role The Security Review 56, June 2012, page 6. Security Review

43 declared through capability catalogues been used. When it comes to EU- to comes it When used. been capabilitycatalogues through declared led operations, the ad hoc force generation processes still prevail. actions has not been proven yet and “waiting for the ideal crisis may ideal the for “waiting and yet proven been not has actions turn the Battlegroup into a ‘forgotten’ instrument of 2012: 6). (Hatzigeorgopoulos, the CSDP toolkit” The fact that none of the EUBGs was deployed despite its engagement additionally positive being considered a few times complicates the CSDP rapid credibility in undertaking value. Their their of judgement consensus of all member states. Time pressure is also one of the obstacles in the EUBG story since it put at odds the need for rapid reaction and EU/national bureaucracy. Besides that, the decision-making process for EUBG deployment includes the their disposal for EU, NATO and UN activities has to be taken into account. into taken be to activities has and UN NATO EU, disposal for their transportation from entry ports (air or sea) to the area of operation. And ports (air or sea) to the area of operation. from entry transportation EUBGs are supposed to enter the area of operation within 10 days of the EU decision. Also, the fact that all have the same set of forces at countries the most probable area of deployment, and finally both kinds of strategic of kinds both finally and deployment, of area probable most the of length and the conditions by bad road affected are further transport capabilities requires a lot of money and there is also the problem of their of problem the is also there and money of lot a capabilities requires while using faster by sealift is time-consuming usability. Namely, transport landing possibilities by the limited in Africa, is restricted airlift capacities In addition, all participating countries suffer a certain shortfall regarding suffer a certain shortfall regarding countries In addition, all participating sealift. Acquiring such i.e. strategic air and the means of deployment, a civilian one. It could be argued that security costs a lot but at least the at but a lot costs security that argued be could It a civilian one. and should be divided fairly. expenditures could principle is definitely undermined in the case of EUBG employment, unless employment, EUBG of case the in undermined definitely is principle the EU finds out a way to finance its military operations in the manner of EUBGs EUBGs are not on standby at the time of operation is doubtful, bearing as well as the mechanism ATHENA the of mode functioning the in mind financial modus operandi as a whole. Therefore, the burden and sharing deployment. In addition, the overall contribution of the countries whose whose of the countries contribution overall the In addition, deployment. , 2007 Economics and Management

Papers 87, Institute for Security Studies, Paris, March 2006 Papers 98, Institute for Security Studies, Paris, March 2007 launching an ESDP crisis managment operation, DIIS Brief, April 2008 launching an ESDP crisis managment Papers 75, Institute for Security Studies, Paris, February 2005 and the Nordic Battlegroup, Report No. 2, March/2006, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies Army of the Czech Republic, EU Security and Defence - Core documents 2006, Volume VII, Chaillot EU Security and Defence - Core documents 2005, Volume VI, Chaillot documents - Core EU Security and Defence EU Security and Defence - Core documents 2004, Volume V, Chaillot Chaillot V, 2004, Volume documents Core - Defence and Security EU Björkdahl, Annika and Strömvik, Maria: The decision-making process behind process decision-making The Maria: Strömvik, and Annika Björkdahl, Brophy, John and Fisera, Miloslav: “National Caveats” and its impact on the on impact its and Caveats” “National Miloslav: Fisera, and John Brophy, Andersson, Jan Joel: Armed and Ready? The EU Battlegroup Concept Bibliography sharing initiative. sharing initiative. specialization. In this case, EUBGs could act as driving forces for closer and closer for forces driving as act could EUBGs case, this In specialization. states and contribute among the participating expanded cooperation pooling and the implementation of a of costs through to the reduction capabilities interests and citizens with less to protect its money. Savings and with other countries cooperation through could be achieved member states than for the Union as a whole. In the security in the future, EU integration deepening impact on could have a positive the EUBGs provide as many to faces is EU the challenge The area. and of respective states. Yet this impact is limited to the very small very small the is limited to this impact states. Yet respective of forces component of their troops and is therefore more significant for individual among not only EU member states but among candidate countries and and countries candidate among but states EU member only not among European NATO members as well. EUBGs have also had military the and transforming standards interoperability in developing role an important However, EUBGs have significantly intensified and deepened cooperation cooperation deepened and intensified significantly have EUBGs However,

Vol.XVIII, No. 66 - 2012 XIX (68) - 2013 112 Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 113 Affairs Rapporteur: Marietta Giannakou, of the Common Security and Defence Policy (based on the the on Parliament European the to Council the from Report Annual Brussels, 27 April 2007 Brussels, 26 April 2011 (2012/2319(INI)), European Parliament, Committee on Foreign 15336/09, Brussels, 4 November 2009 point 5 15336/09, Brussels, 4 November 2009 and the Treaty establishing the European Community, 2007 and the Treaty establishing the European 22 November 2004 Commitment Conference, Brussels, International Peacekeeping 15 (2011) International Peacekeeping Affairs 11, 2010, The Polish Institute of International Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) , February 2007, Security Studies (EUISS) , February Union Institute for for Security IV, Chaillot Papers 67, Institute documents, Volume 2003 Studies, Paris, December Institute for Security, European Security Review 56, June 2012 Security Review for Security, European Institute Papers 112, Institute for Security Studies, Paris, October 2008 October Paris, Studies, for Security 112, Institute Papers European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the implementation 2012 the November on 22 of Parliament resolution European Draft report on EU’s military structures: State of play and future prospects future play and of State structures: EU’s military on report Draft EUMC Report to PSC on the outcome of BGCC 1/12, 8975/12 ADD 1, EU Battlegroup Concept, Council of the European Union, 13618/06 EXT 1, EU Council Secretariat Factsheet, «EU Battlegroups», EU BG 02, November 2006 November 02, BG EU Battlegroups», «EU Factsheet, Secretariat Council EU Document increasing the flexibility and usability of the EU Battlegroups, Declaration on European military capabilities, Military Capability European Declaration on , Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union European on Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty Lisbon, of Treaty Terlikowski, Marcin: Polish-led EU Battle Group, Bulletin No. 3 (79), January Naert, Frederik: Legal aspects of EU military Naert, Journal of operations, Missiroli, Antonio: From Copenhagen to Brussels: European defence: Core defence: European Brussels: to Copenhagen From Antonio: Missiroli, Lindstrom, G: Enter the EU Battlegroups, Chaillot Papers 97, The European Hatzigeorgopoulos, Myrto: The role of EU Battlegroups in European defence, European in Battlegroups EU of role The Myrto: Hatzigeorgopoulos, EU Security and Defence – Core documents 2009, Volume X, 1 July 2010 2009, Volume – Core documents and Defence EU Security EU Security and Defence - Core documents 2007, Volume VIII, Chaillot VIII, Chaillot Volume 2007, documents Core - Defence and Security EU Vol.XVIII,XIX No.(68) 66 - 2013 - 2012 93

http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/ is a senior adviser in the Ministry of Defence of Ministry the adviser in senior is a Bonn, 19 June 1992 Bonn, 19 June 1992 December 2001 Headline Goal to the EU Battlegroups”, Dr Gerrard Quille, European Quille, Gerrard Dr Battlegroups”, EU the to Goal Headline Union, the of Policies External for Directorate-General Parliament, Department Directorate B, Policy Common Foreign and Security Policy) (12562/2011 2012/2138(INI)) (12562/2011 Policy) – Security and Foreign Common The opinions expressed in this article are authors own and The opinions expressed in this article are authors own and not those of the MOD. holds a Masters Degree in International Relations (thesis: New Relations International in Degree Masters a holds European Security Architecture). with the EU on Chapter 31 – Foreign, Security and Defence – Foreign, 31 Chapter EU on with the Political Faculty of the from graduated Ms Šmaguc Policy. Science, University of Zagreb in 1989 and since 2008 she and regional multilateral cooperation issues. She was also a and regional multilateral cooperation negotiations of preparation for Group of Working member Defence Policy and Planning Sector. She works in MOD since Defence Policy Sector. and Planning 1992 she worked in the area of the and during last 10 years dealing with the EU, UN International Defence Cooperation Beatrica Šmaguc Beatrica Defence Policy Directorate, of the Republic of Croatia (MOD), EU web page - http://europa.eu/index_en.htm Forces - Web page of the Swedish Armed Western European Union Council of Ministers, “Petersburg Declaration,” Declaration,” Union Council of Ministers, “Petersburg Western European Presidency Conclusions, Thessaloniki European Council, 19 and 20 June 2003 June 20 and 19 Council, European Thessaloniki Conclusions, Presidency Presidency Conclusions, European Council Meeting in Laeken, 14 and 15 in Laeken, European Council Meeting Presidency Conclusions, EU-NATO: the Framework for Permanent Relations and Berlin Plus Relations and Berlin for Permanent the Framework EU-NATO: Helsinki the From Policy: Defence and Security European “The Note