DOCSLIB.ORG

Macedonian Case

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Macedonian Case МЕЃУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЈА БЕЗБЕДНОСТА КАКО ПРЕДМЕТ НА ИСТРАЖУВАЊЕ - ПРИСТАПИ, КОНЦЕПТИ И ПОЛИТИКИ INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE RESEARCHING SECURITY: APPROACHES, CONCEPTS AND POLICIES МЕЃУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЈА БЕЗБЕДНОСТА КАКО ПРЕДМЕТ НА ИСТРАЖУВАЊЕ - ПРИСТАПИ, КОНЦЕПТИ И ПОЛИТИКИ 2-3 Јуни 2015, Охрид Tом III СКОПЈЕ, 2015 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE RESEARCHING SECURITY: APPROACHES, CONCEPTS AND POLICIES 2 - 3 June 2015 Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia Volume III SKOPJE, 2015 Издавачи: Publishers: Универзитет „Св. Климент University “St. Kliment Охридски“ Битола Ohridski”- Bitola Факултет за безбедност – Faculty of Security- Skopje Скопје За издавачите: For the Publishers: проф. д-р Сашо Kоруновски, Sašo Korunovski, PhD Rector of ректор на Универзитетот „Св. the University “St. Kliment Климент Охридски“ – Скопје Ohridski”- Bitola проф. д-р Оливер Бачановиќ, Oliver Bačanović, PhD Dean of декан на Факултетот за the Faculty of Security- Skopje безбедност – Скопје Уредник на изданието: Editor in Chief: Проф. д-р Цане Т.Мојаноски Cane T.Mojanoski, PhD Преведувачи: Proofreading: Анче Белада Anče Belada м-р Даниела Јосифова Daniela Josifova, MA Марија Рашковска Marija Raškovska Марија Вучкова Marija Vučkova Компјутерска обработка: Computer Processing:: Проф. д-р Цане Т. Мојаноски Cane T.Mojanoski, PhD Кемал Рушид Kemal Rushid Печати: Print: АД „Ван Гог“ - Скопје “Van Gog” - LTD Skopje Адреса на издавачите: Address of the Publishers: Факултет за безбедност Faculty of Security 1000 Скопје 1000 Skopje П. Фах 103 P.O. Box 103 тел: 022546211 tel: ++389(0)22546211 Универзитет „Св. Климент University “St. Kliment Охридски“ Ohridski” 1ви Maj б.б. 1 Maj b.b. 7000 Битола, 7000 Bitola тел: 047223788 tel: +++389(0) 47223788 ПРОГРАМСКИ ОДБОР PROGRAMME COMMITTEE д-р Оливер Бачановиќ, декан, Факултет за безбедност –Скопје, Оliver Bačanović, PhD., Dean of the Република Македонија Faculty of Security д-р Младен Бајагиќ, декан, Mladen Bajagć, PhD , Dean of the Криминалистичко-полициска Academy of Criminalistics and Police академија, (КПА), Србија Studies, Serbia Хелен Мартини, претседател на Helene Martini, President of the Асоцијацијата на европските Association of European Police Colleges полициски колеџи Gorazd Meško, PhD , Dean of the д-р Горазд Мешко, декан на Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, Факултетот за криминална правдаи Slovenia безбедност, Словенија Nedelčo Lazarov Stojčev, PhD , Rector д-р Неделчо Лазаров Стојчев, Ректор of the Academy of the Ministry of Interior, на Академијата при Министерството Bulgaria за внатрешни работи, Софија Radomir Milašinović, PhD, Dean of the д-р Радомир Mилашиновиќ, Декан Faculty of Security Studies, University of на Факултетот за безбедност, Belgrade, Serbia Универзитет во Белград, Србија Remzi Findikli, PhD, Director of the д-р Ремзи Финдикли, Директор на Turkish National Police Academy, Turkey турската национална Полициска Mile Šikman, PhD, Head of the академија, Турција Administration for Police Education of д-р Миле Шикман, началник, Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Директорат за полициска едукација, Herzegovina МВР, Република Српска, Босна и Ivan Toth, PhD, University of Applied Херцеговина Sciences - VVG, Croatia д-р Иван Тош, Универзитет на Rajko Pekovic, Police Academy, применет науки, Хрватска Montenegro Рајко Пековиќ, Полициска академија, Troje Daniel Kostel, PhD, Rector of the Црна Гора Police Academy ”Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, д-р Трое Даниел Костел, ректор на Romania Полициска академија Alexandru Ioan Nedžad Korajlić, PhD, Dean of the Cuza“, Романија Faculty of Criminalistics, Criminology д-р Неџад Корајлиќ, декан, Факултет and Security Studies, University of за криминалистика, криминологија и Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina безбедносни студии, Босна и Ferenc Banfi, PhD, Director of CEPOL Херцеговина (European Police College) д-р Ференц Банфи, Директор во AljošaKandzic, PhD, President of the ЦЕПОЛ (Европски полициски колеџи) Council, Institute for Corporate Security д-р Аљоша Канџиќ,Институт за Studies ICS Ljubljana, Slovenia корпоративнни студии ИЦС, Љубљана, Словенија SECRETARY СЕКРЕТАР Vesna Трајкovska, PhD д-р Весна Трајковска, Secretary of the International Programme Секретар на Програмскиот одбор Committee ОРГАНИЗАЦИОНЕН ОДБОР ORGANIZING COMMITTEE проф. д-р Цане T. Мојаноски, Cane Mojanoski, PhD, Chairman претседател вон. проф. д-р Марјан Николовски Marjan Nikolovski, PhD вон.проф.д-р Светлана Николовска Snežana Mojsoska, Dr. Sc доц. д-р Снежана Мојсоска Nikola Dujovski, PhD доц. д-р Никола Дујовски Ljupčo Todorovski, PhD. доц. д-р Љупчо Тодоровски Rade Rajkovčevski, PhD доц. д-р Раде Рајковчевски Marjan Gjurovski, PhD доц. д-р Весна Стефановска Vesna Stefanovska, PhD СЕКРЕТАР SECRETARY доц. д-р Марјан Ѓуровски Marjan Gjurovski, PhD CONTENTS POLITICAL AND LEGAL SYSTEMS AND RULE OF LAW CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES - PRE CONDITION FOR DEEP STRUCTURAL REFORMS IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA Miodrag Labovic, PhD.................................................................................... 1 SOLVING THE MACEDONIAN NAME DISPUTE: HISTORICAL NARRATIVES AND POLITICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE Zidas Daskalovski, Ph.D ............................................................................... 28 THE CONCEPT OF DIGNITAS HOMINIS IN ROMAN LAW Dzevad Drino, Ph.D, Benjamina Londrc, MA.............................................. 50 INSTITUTIONAL BUILDING OF LAW AND FIGHT AGAINST CRIME Hatidža Beriša, PhD, Mila Jegeš, MA, Igor Barišić, .................................... 57 RELIGION AND POLITICS IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE (SOME QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS IN XXI CENTURY) Ivanka Dodovska, PhD ................................................................................. 66 STRENGTHENING THE RULE OF LAW AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INSTITUTIONS: JUSTICE IS DONE OR JUSTICE NEEDS TO BE DONE? Mojca Rep, MA. ........................................................................................... 78 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL POLICY REFORM OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL LAW IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC - ONE OR MULTIPLE CRIMNAL PROCESSES Jan Provazník ................................................................................................ 95 POSSIBLE IMPACT OF THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE MUSLIJA V. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA ON THE REFORM OF THE MINOR OFFENCE LAW IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON DELICTS WITH VIOLENT CHARACTERISTICS Darko Jokić, MA, Marinko Janjetović, MA ............................................... 107 COMPUTER RELATED CRIME – GENERAL LEGAL DEVELOPMENT IN SERBIA Mina Zirojević, PhD ................................................................................... 120 CRIMINAL POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Ivan Kleimenov, Ph.D................................................................................. 131 SANCTIONS FOR SPECTATOR VIOLENCE – IMPOSING A SENTENCE OF PROHIBITION OF ENTERING ON SPORTS, CULTURE AND OTHER SOCIAL EVENTS Tereza Konečná .......................................................................................... 139 ON THE PATH OF THE BUSINESS OF SMUGGLING MIGRANTS: MACEDONIAN CASE Angelina Stanojoska, PhD, Ivona Shushak, MA, Blagojce Petrevski, MA 149 RADBRUCH FORMULA RIGHTS AS BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING FAIR TRIAL Nikola Ivković, ........................................................................................... 162 CRIMINAL DIMENSION OF ORGANIZED CRIME IN THE CRIMINAL CODE OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Draganа Vasiljevic, MA ............................................................................. 174 EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES AND CHALLENGE ADMISSION OF MACEDONIA TO UN AND THE MODE(S) FOR JURIDICAL AND POLITICAL REDRESS Igor Janev,PhD, Frosina T. Remenski,PhD, Marjan Nikolovski, PhD ....... 187 EU - NATO RELATIONS IN POST LISBON ERA Snezana Nikodinoska – Stefanovska .......................................................... 212 II NATO VS EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY: DIVERGENT CONCEPTS OF SECURITY Ivica Josifovic, PhD, Zlatko Keskoski, PhD............................................... 228 REGIONAL COOPERATION COUNCIL OF THE SEE COUNTRIES AND THE NEEDS FOR DEFENSE REFORMS IN THE REPUBLIC OF MONTENEGRO FOR EURO-ATLANTIC INTEGRATION Drage Petreski, PhD, Andrej Iliev, PhD, Aco Velkovski, MA ................... 241 ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN INTERNAL SECURITY STRATEGY AND FUTURE CHALLENGES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IN THE FIELD OF INTERNAL SECURITY FOR THE PERIOD FROM 2015 TO 2020 Stevo Ivetić, PhD, Gojko Pavlović, MA, Goran Maričić, MA ................... 266 SAFETY CONCEPT - BEFORE AND AFTER THE COLD WAR Tatjana Gerginova, PhD, ............................................................................ 280 NATO DEPLOYABLE CAPACITIES AND CAPABILITIES POLICY Igor Gorevski, PhD ..................................................................................... 296 II POLITICAL AND LEGAL SYSTEMS AND RULE OF LAW UDK: 35.072:342.4.04(497.7) CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES - PRE CONDITION FOR DEEP STRUCTURAL REFORMS IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA Miodrag Labovic, PhD Faculty of Security – Skopje e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Up to now, the constitutional changes that have been done, and the reforms that have been made in the Republic of Macedonia are insufficient for faster and more qualitative economy rise and development, as well as the development in all spheres of public life.1 So far the reforms were mostly shallow, partial and short-term. They do not embrace deeply in the structure of the system and its subsystems. Accordingly to the systemic theory2, each system is actually a subsystem of the other bigger system.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EU Defence: the White Book Implementation Process
    STUDY Requested by the SEDE Subcommittee EU Defence: The White Book implementation process Policy Department for External Relations Directorate General for External Policies of the Union PE 603.871 - December 2018 EN DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT STUDY EU Defence: The White Book implementation process ABSTRACT The question of a defence White Book at European level has been under discussion for some time. Many voices, particularly in the European Parliament, are pushing for such an initiative, while others consider that it is not only unnecessary, but could even dangerously divide Europeans. Concretely, the question cannot be tackled separately from that of defence planning and processes which underpin the development of military capabilities, as White Books are often the starting point for these. Within the European Union, however, there is not just one, but three types defence planning: the national planning of each of the Member States; planning within the framework of NATO (the NATO Defence Planning Process) and, finally, the European Union’s planning, which has developed in stages since the Helsinki summit of 1999 and comprises many elements. Its best-known component - but by no means not the only one - is the capability development plan established by the European Defence Agency. How do all these different planning systems coexist? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Answering these preliminary questions is essential in mapping the path to a White Book. This is what this study sets out to do. EP/EXPO/B/SEDE/FWC/2013-08/Lot6/23 EN December 2018 - PE 603.871 © European Union, 2018 Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies This document was requested by the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) on 7 July 2018 Manuscript was completed on 12 December 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Training and Simulation
    Food for thought 05-2021 Training and Simulation Written by AN EXPERTISE FORUM CONTRIBUTING TO EUROPEAN CONTRIBUTING TO FORUM AN EXPERTISE SINCE 1953 ARMIES INTEROPERABILITY the Research team of Finabel European Army Interoperability Center This study was written under the guidance of the Swedish presidency, headed by MG Engelbrektson, Commander of the Swedish Army. Special thanks go out to all ex- perts providing their insights on the topic, including but not limited too: MAJ Ulrik Hansson-Mild, Mr Henrik Reimer, SSG Joel Gustafsson, Mr Per Hagman, Robert Wilsson, MAJ Björn Lahger and SGM Anders Jakobsson.This study was drawn up by the Research team of Finabel over the course of a few months, including: Cholpon Abdyraeva, Paolo d'Alesio, Florinda Artese, Yasmine Benchekroun, Antoine Decq, Luca Dilda, Enzo Falsanisi, Vlad Melnic, Oliver Noyan, Milan Storms, Nadine Azi- hane, Dermot Nolan under the guidance of Mr Mario Blokken, Director of the Per- manent Secretariat. This Food for Thought paper is a document that gives an initial reflection on the theme. The content is not reflecting the positions of the member states but consists of elements that can initiate and feed the discussions and analyses in the domain of the theme. All our studies are available on www.finabel.org TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Data Utilisation, the Need for Standardisation and Obstacles 33 Cultural Interoperability 4 Introduction 33 Introduction 4 9. What is Data? 34 1. Exercises as Means to 10. Political Aspects: National Deter Opposition 5 Interests vs. Interoperability 34 2. Current Trends in SBT 13 11. Data Interoperability 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Death of an Institution: the End for Western European Union, a Future
    DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? EGMONT PAPER 46 DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? ALYSON JK BAILES AND GRAHAM MESSERVY-WHITING May 2011 The Egmont Papers are published by Academia Press for Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations. Founded in 1947 by eminent Belgian political leaders, Egmont is an independent think-tank based in Brussels. Its interdisciplinary research is conducted in a spirit of total academic freedom. A platform of quality information, a forum for debate and analysis, a melting pot of ideas in the field of international politics, Egmont’s ambition – through its publications, seminars and recommendations – is to make a useful contribution to the decision- making process. *** President: Viscount Etienne DAVIGNON Director-General: Marc TRENTESEAU Series Editor: Prof. Dr. Sven BISCOP *** Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations Address Naamsestraat / Rue de Namur 69, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone 00-32-(0)2.223.41.14 Fax 00-32-(0)2.223.41.16 E-mail [email protected] Website: www.egmontinstitute.be © Academia Press Eekhout 2 9000 Gent Tel. 09/233 80 88 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.academiapress.be J. Story-Scientia NV Wetenschappelijke Boekhandel Sint-Kwintensberg 87 B-9000 Gent Tel. 09/225 57 57 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.story.be All authors write in a personal capacity. Lay-out: proxess.be ISBN 978 90 382 1785 7 D/2011/4804/136 U 1612 NUR1 754 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • The EU-NATO Syndrome: Spotlight on Transatlantic Realities
    ▌JCER Volume 3 • Issue 2 99 The EU-NATO Syndrome: Spotlight on Transatlantic Realities Hajnalka Vincze Abstract This article examines the relations between the European Union (EU) and NATO in light of both of the current, deeply unhealthy, state of the transatlantic relationship, and of its ongoing evolution. The first part is devoted to a retrospective outline of the links between European defence and the Atlantic system, which highlights the major constant features of these last sixty years, as well as the rupture points. Then, various issues, from the problem of the division of labour and the definition of the chain of command to coordination on the ground and arms procurement, are evoked as concrete examples where the same fundamental question marks emerge, again and again; all of them revolving around the concept of sovereignty – that of the Europeans vis-à-vis America. It is suggested in the article that current European dependence does not allow but superficial and/or temporary ‘progress’ in EU-NATO relations, just as is the case in the broader Euro-American relationship. As long as Europeans will not assume fully the objective of autonomy (i.e. freedom of decision and action, with all the commitments it would imply), their subjection will continue to generate increasing tensions, since this inherent imbalance is not only detrimental to Europe’s own interests, but it also excludes any reciprocity and prohibits any genuine partnership with the United States. CONTRARY TO THE TWO DOMINANT, ALBEIT DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED, TYPES of forecasts that were both highly fashionable a few years ago, it appears more and more clearly that the headaches related to the EU-NATO conundrum are here to stay.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2016 ''Winter Package'' on European Security and Defence: Constiturional, Legal and Institutional Implicatio
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS The 2016 “Winter Package” on European Security and Defence: Constitutional, Legal and Institutional Implications IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS Abstract This study was commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament. It examines a series of constitutional, legal and institutional implications of the proposals endorsed by the December 2016 European Council for the further development of the Common Security and Defence Policy in the framework of the current Treaties. PE 571.405 EN ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This research paper was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs and was commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU external and internal policies. To contact the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] Research Administrator Responsible Eeva ERIKSSON Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail:
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 May Veliko Tarnovo 4Th CSDP Olympiad Booklet.Pdf
    4th COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY OLYMPIAD Residential phase, 21 - 25 May 2018 at Vasil Levski NMU, Veliko Tarnovo, under the auspices of the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union and the European Security and Defence College, Brussels, Belgium Publication of the Vasil Levski National Military University Editor: Colonel Prof. Dr. Veselin MADANSKI, Colonel Assoc. Prof. Nevena ATANASOVA - KRASTEVA, PhD Language Editor: Senior Instructor Marina RAYKOVA Disclaimer: Any views or opinions presented in this booklet are solely those of the authors. © Vasil Levski National Military University, Veliko Tarnovo, BULGARIA, 2018 ISBN 978-954-753-278-6 2 CONTENTS Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... 3 History of the CSDP Olympiad ................................................................................ 5 History of the Vasil Levski NMU, Veliko Tarnovo ........................................... 8 OPENING CEREMONY SPEECHES ....................................................................... 10 Speech of the Deputy-Minister of the Bulgarian Presidency of the EU Council ................................................................................................................ 10 CSDP Olympiad 2018 – Speech of the Chairman of the IG .......................... 13 Speech of the Head of the ESDC ............................................................................. 15 Speech of the Minister of Defence ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The European Security and Defence Policy
    TTHEHE FEDERALFEDERAL TRUSTTRUST foreducation&research enlightening the debate on good governance EuropeanPolicyBrief Apr 2006 • Issue 26 • The Federal Trust, 7 Graphite Square, Vauxhall Walk, London SE11 5EE • www.fedtrust.co.uk The European Security and Defence Policy Introduction Established at the Cologne European Council in June 1999, the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) has, in the 7 years since its inception, given rise to countless debates and discussions. Whereas some commentators regard the ESDP as an overall success story, others voice doubts. The current discussion about whether the EU should send peacekeeping troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo during elections this June seems to crystallise these doubts. Only three EU member states would be capable of leading such a mission, and two of them, France and the United Kingdom, are currently unwilling and unable to mount an international deployment because of their respective involvement in Iraq and the Ivory Coast. After months of discussion, Germany eventually agreed at the EU External Affairs Council on 20 March 2006 to lead the military operation to the Congo from headquarters in Potsdam. Nevertheless, opposition to a Congo mission is still strong in Berlin, with considerable scepticism even within the governing parties. It is still unclear whether the German government will be able muster enough votes in the Bundestag (which has a right of veto on the mission) to send soldiers to Congo. Such uncertainty is not calculated to increase Europe’s standing and military credibility in the world. On the other hand, the European Security and Defence Policy has undoubted successes to its credit.
    [Show full text]
  • France, NATO and ESDP: the Impossible Balancing
    France, NATO and European Security: Status Quo Unsustainable; New Balance Unattainable? Jolyon HOWORTH∗ In January 1947, British and French officials met to discuss draft versions of the Treaty of Dunkirk. A sticking point emerged over the precise conditions under which the proposed mutual defence clause could be invoked. For the French, the simple threat of territorial invasion should trigger British support. For the British, however, only an actual invasion could warrant the implementation of alliance solidarity. This seemingly arcane distinction already presaged the fundamental difference of strategic approach between Paris and London which was to result in fifty years of stalemate in European defence Cupertino. For the United Kingdom (U.K.), too strong a statement of European resolve risked demotivating the United States (U.S.) and encouraging U.S. isolationism. For France, a strong Europe was the logical prerequisite for a strong Alliance. Europe needed to balance U.S. power—in the interests of both parties. Thus, from the outset of the post-war period, France expressed confidence in Europe's ability to safeguard her own future, whereas Britain worried that the old continent could never be secure without the permanent entanglement of the new1. Contrary to a great deal of mythology, France was never opposed to the “involvement of the new”—indeed the mainstream of the political class, including Charles de Gaulle himself, actively pressed for the creation of NATO and for the construction of an Atlantic partnership. What France in general (and the General in particular) could not accept was an imbalanced alliance in which one of the ∗ Jolyon Howorth is Jean Monnet Professor of European Politics at Bath University and Associate Research Fellow at the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri).
    [Show full text]
  • Headline Goal 2010 and the Concept of the Eu Battle Groups: an Assessment of the Build-Up of a European Defence Capability
    Headline Goal 2010 Cicero Foundation _____________________________________________________________________ Julian LINDLEY-FRENCH University of Munich Centre for Applied Policy Senior Scholar PARIS, 9 December 2005 HEADLINE GOAL 2010 AND THE CONCEPT OF THE EU BATTLE GROUPS: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE BUILD-UP OF A EUROPEAN DEFENCE CAPABILITY Lecture in the International Seminar for Experts “European Security and Defence Policy and the Transatlantic Relationship: How to Strike a New Balance?”, organised by the Cicero Foundation in the series Great Debates, Paris, 8 – 9 December 2005 Introduction Let me first set everything I am going to say against this opening statement. I believe passionately that Europeans should take their security destiny into their own hands. I therefore believe in a strong ESDP. Europeans will have to go strategic and they can only do so as Europe. I also believe in the reconstitution of the transatlantic relationship with NATO at its core if we are to have any chance of managing security in the big world that is emerging in the twenty-first century. Three methods are required to meet the challenge, description, prescription and assessment. I will get the description, (i.e. what is Headline Goal 2010 and what are the Battle Groups?) over as quickly as possible, but it seems to me the prescription should be built around three questions. • What is the relationship between Headline Goal 2010 and the Helsinki Headline Goal? • To what extent is the Capabilities Development Mechanism serving Headline Goal 2010? • What is the relationship between Headline Goal 2010 and the strategic environment? Headline Goal 2010 So, what is Headline Goal 2010? Let me quote from the European Council communiqué of 17-18 June 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • European Defence: Where Is It Heading?
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 8216, updated 30 October 2019 EU defence: where is it By Claire Mills heading? Contents: 1. Background 2. 2013 - A fresh impetus for CSDP 3. Making progress on CSDP 4. The Brexit effect 5. Towards a common European defence? www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 EU defence: where is it heading? Contents Summary 4 1. Background 9 2. 2013 - A fresh impetus for CSDP 11 2.1 Conclusions of the 2013 European Council summit 11 3. Making progress on CSDP 14 3.1 Security and Defence Implementation Plan 14 EU Battlegroups 15 Operational planning 16 Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) 19 Co-ordinated Annual Review of Defence (CARD) 25 European Peace Facility 27 3.2 Enhanced EU-NATO Co-operation 28 3.3 European Defence Industry 30 Defence Action Plan and the European Defence Fund 31 4. The Brexit effect 38 4.1 What sort of relationship do both sides want? 39 Political Declaration on the Framework for Future Relations 39 4.2 What if the UK leaves the EU with no deal? 42 5. Towards a common European defence? 45 5.1 Integrationist voices 45 5.2 Is further evolution of CSDP likely? 47 3 Commons Library Briefing, updated 30 October 2019 Cover page image copyright: RN Type 45 Destroyer HMS Dragon by Defence images / image cropped. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 Eurofighter Typhoon FGR4 7 by Ronnie MacDonald / image cropped. Licensed under CC BY-2.0 Brexit image and flag image – no attribution required. Licensed under CC0 Creative Commons / images cropped.
    [Show full text]
  • National Visions of Eu Defence Policy
    NATIONAL VISIONS OF EU DEFENCE POLICY COMMON DENOMINATORS AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS Edited by FEDERICO SANTOPINTO AND MEGAN PRICE With contributions from JOANNA DOBROWOLSKA-POLAK GIOVANNI FALEG ALESSANDRO MARRONE MANUEL MUNIZ MEGAN PRICE FEDERICO SANTOPINTO CHRISTIAN WURZER COST, GRIP, CEPS CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES (CEPS) BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. GRIP (Groupe de recherche et d’information sur la paix et la sécurité) is a research and information institute based in Brussels. Set up in 1979, GRIP specialises in peace and security studies. For more information: www.grip.org This publication is supported by COST. COST is an intergovernmental framework for European Cooperation in Science and Technology, allowing the coordination of nationally funded research on a European level. COST is supported by the European Union RTD Framework Programme. © COST Office, 2013 No permission to reproduce or utilise the contents of this book by any means is necessary, other than in the case of images, diagrams or other materials from other copyright holders. In such cases, permission of the copyright holders is required. This book may be cited as: COST ACTION IS 0805 – title of the publication. The Legal notice by the COST Office: Neither the COST Office nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained in this publication. The COST Office is not responsible for the external websites referred to this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO and the European Union
    NATO and the European Union Updated January 29, 2008 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32342 NATO and the European Union Summary Since the end of the Cold War, both NATO and the European Union (EU) have evolved along with Europe’s changed strategic landscape. While NATO’s collective defense guarantee remains at the core of the alliance, members have also sought to redefine its mission as new security challenges have emerged on Europe’s periphery and beyond. At the same time, EU members have taken steps toward political integration with decisions to develop a common foreign policy and a defense arm to improve EU member states’ abilities to manage security crises, such as those that engulfed the Balkans in the 1990s. The evolution of NATO and the EU, however, has generated some friction between the United States and several of its allies over the security responsibilities of the two organizations. U.S.- European differences center around threat assessment, defense institutions, and military capabilities. Successive U.S. administrations and the U.S. Congress have called for enhanced European defense capabilities to enable the allies to better share the security burden, and to ensure that NATO’s post-Cold War mission embraces combating terrorism and countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. policymakers, backed by Congress, support EU efforts to develop a European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) provided that it remains tied to NATO and does not threaten the transatlantic relationship. Most EU member states support close NATO-EU links, but also view ESDP as a means to give themselves more options for dealing with future crises, especially in cases in which the United States may be reluctant to become involved.
    [Show full text]