DOCSLIB.ORG

0601 Brief Guide to ESDP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
0601 Brief Guide to ESDP Permanent representation of France to European Union BRIEF GUIDE TO THE EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY (ESDP) 2 3 4 Summary December 2005 Foreword 8 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 10 1.1 CFSP in brief 10 1.2 First stages of the ESDP: 1998-2002 11 1.3 A doctrine for Europe: the European Security Strategy 12 2. ACTION UNDER THE ESDP 14 2.1 Initial activities 14 a) Petersberg tasks 14 b) Civilian aspects of crisis management 14 2.2 An expanding field of action 14 a) Armaments cooperation œ European Defence Agency 14 b) European Union cooperation in the security field 15 c) Counter-terrorism 16 d) Space 16 2.3 Relations with third countries and the other international organizations with a security remit 17 a) Relations with NATO 17 b) Relations with the UN and the regional international organizations 18 c) Relations with third countries 18 d) W EU legacy 19 e) European multinational forces 19 3. POLITICO-MILITARY STRUCTURES AND PROCEDURES 21 3.1 Structures 21 a) Politico-military bodies of the Council 21 b) Integrated structures œ General Secretariat of the Council 23 c) Agencies 26 3.2 Crisis management: ways and means 28 a) Crisis-management procedures 28 5 b) Financing civilian and military operations 29 c) Exercises 30 3. ESDP OPERATIONS 31 4.1 Military operations 31 a) Concordia 31 b) Artemis 32 c) Althea 32 4.2 Civilian operations 33 a) EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina 33 b) EU Police Mission in FYROM 34 c) EU Rule of Law Mission in Georgia 35 d) EU Police Mission in DRC 36 e) EU Rule of Law Mission for Iraq 36 f) EU Monitoring Mission in the W estern Balkans 37 g) EU Aceh Monitoring Mission 37 h) European Coordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support and EU Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories 38 i) EU Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point 39 4.3. EU civilian and military supporting action to the African Union in Darfur 40 4.4 Cooperation in the security field 41 5. DEVELOPING EU CAPABILITIES 43 5.1 Military capabilities 43 a) Headline Goal 2010m 43 b) Battlegroups 44 c) Capability Development Mechanism (CDM) 44 d) European Capability Action Plan (ECAP) 45 5.2 European Defence Agency (EDA) 45 a) Agency mission 45 b) Organization of the Agency, decision-making, integration into the EU structures 46 5.3 Civilian capabilities 47 a) Action plan for developing civilian capabilities 48 b) Civilian Headline Goal 2008 49 6 C ONCLUSION/PROSPECTS 50 Notes 51 Appendices 52 1. Chronology of Defence Europe 52 2. Technical glossary 56 3. List of acronyms 60 4. Provisions of the Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe on the ESDP 62 7 F oreword The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), which constitutes the operational arm of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) for both military and civilian purposes, is today one of the most dynamic areas of the European project. After the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which established the CFSP and looked towards the creation of a —European Defence“ in the long term, the Franco-British Saint-Malo summit in December 1998 initiated the ESDP, whose basic text is the declaration of the Cologne European Council in June 1999. Progress since then has been extremely rapid, from developing the concepts and setting up the politico-military structures within the European institutions to deploying the first operations in the field. To date, the EU has launched 13 ESDP operations: three military operations (in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Bosnia-Herzegovina), eight civilian operations (in the W estern Balkans, Bosnia-Herzegovina, FYROM, Georgia, Aceh/Indonesia, DRC, Iraq, Palestinian Territories), a civilian and military action to support the African Union in Sudan/Darfur, and a cooperation mission in the field of security in the DRC. On 1 January 2006, another police mission will be deployed in the Palestinian Territories. The European Union is gradually emerging today as a major player on the international scene, with a strategic vision, embodied in the European Security Strategy, and diplomatic, civilian and military crisis- management instruments, which complement the other available tools (economic, commercial, humanitarian and development aid). It is not only present on the European continent œ in the W estern Balkans and southern Caucasus œ but also in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. These recent developments are radically changing the political nature of the EU, which is now capable of carrying its founding values of peace and security beyond its borders. Still too little is known about the ESDP. This brief guide aims to make it easier to understand, both for research workers and students and for the civilian and military officials, especially those, increasingly numerous, called upon to work in European politico-military institutions 8 o r take part in EU crisis-management operations. This guide complements the CFSP guide published by the French Foreign Ministry. Sylvie Bermann Ambassador, Representative of France to the European Union Political and Security Committee The guide was written by the French Delegation to the EU Political and Security Committee (Fabien Penone, Hélène Le Gal, Dana Purcarescu, Jérôme Montant and Xavier Domino), with the assistance of the French military representation to the EU. 9 1 . HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1.1. CFSP in brief - ith its far-reaching implications for the sovereignty of States, the idea of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) has long been viewed with serious reservations, the most obvious sign of which was the failure of the European Defence Community (EDC) in 1954. Not addressed in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, the field of foreign policy re-emerged in June 1970, when the foreign ministers of the Six proposed developing —European Political Cooperation“: this was the birth of EPC, whose objectives (harmonization of positions, consultations and, where necessary, joint action) and methods (biannual meetings of foreign ministers and quarterly meetings of political directors in the political committee format) were defined in the Davignon report (published in October 1970). This intergovernmental process of consultation and decision- making based on consensus was progressively strengthened: more frequent meetings, establishment of a European communication network (COREU œ CORrespondance EUropéenne) following the Copenhagen report in 1973, creation of the Troika following the London report in 1981). This was formalized in Title III of the Single European Act (February 1986), which gave it legal status and created its General Secretariat, placed under the Presidency‘s authority. The Treaty on European Union (TEU, adopted in Maastricht on 7 February 1992 and entered into force on 11 November 1993) was both the logical culmination of the 20 years of EPC and a resolutely new step: it created the CFSP, which would henceforth constitute the second pillar of the European Union. Compared with EPC, the CFSP represented a significant advance on at least three points: first, it covered all areas of foreign and security policy, including —the eventual framing of a common defence policy“; next, it required Member States to —ensure that their national policies are consistent with the common positions“; finally, it created a new legal instrument, Joint Action, which allowed the EU‘s financial resources to be mobilized. Further innovations were introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam (signed on 2 October 1997 and entered into force on 1 May 1999), which established a High Representative for the CFSP, a post held 10 s ince 1999 by Javier Solana, and gave the European Council greater competence to establish guidelines notably in the field of security and defence. Finally, the Treaty of Nice (signed on 26 February 2001 and entered into force on 1 February 2003) institutionalized the Political and Security Committee (PSC), responsible for contributing to the definition of EU policies in the field of CFSP, introduced enhanced cooperation in the second pillar (except for defence), and adapted Article 17 of the TEU to developments in the field of defence (humanitarian and peacekeeping operations). The CFSP is both the institutional framework which gave birth to the ESDP and the political framework which justifies its development. 1.2. First stages of the ESDP: 1998-2002 To be put into effect, the ESDP needed not only the institutional framework provided by the CFSP, but also the common political will of the Member States. This was born of the lessons drawn from the Yugoslav crises and in particular the Bosnian tragedy. Europe‘s inability to resolve a conflict on its borders without American assistance, mobilized through NATO, became glaringly obvious. The French and the British drew the conclusions from this at the 1998 Saint-Malo bilateral summit, which defined the framework and main objectives of the ESDP. The Cologne European Council in 1999 saw the Fifteen sign up to the objectives set at that summit. From 1998 to 2002, the ESDP advanced at each successive European Council, gradually becoming a reality. At the Feira European Council (1999), the EU decided to launch the ESDP‘s civilian arm. At the Nice European Council (2000), further important steps were taken with the incorporation of the W estern European Union (W EU), creation of permanent structures within the Council to deal with ESDP matters and definition of EU defence relations with third countries and NATO. One year later, at the Laeken European Council (2001), the ESDP was declared operational. The following year, in 2002, the EU enlarged the ESDP‘s missions to include the fight against terrorism (Seville European Council) and concluded an agreement with NATO (known as —Berlin Plus“) at the Copenhagen European Council, allowing the EU to have recourse to NATO collective assets and capabilities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conférence Diplomatique Sur La Protection Des Interprétations Et Exécutions Audiovisuelles Diplomatic Conference on the Prote
    AVP/DC/INF/2 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH/FRANÇAIS DATE: 7 NOVEMBRE 2012 / NOVEMBER 7, 2012 Conférence diplomatique sur la protection des interprétations et exécutions audiovisuelles Beijing, 20 – 26 juin 2012 Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of Audiovisual Performances Beijing, June 20 to 26, 2012 LISTE* DES PARTICIPANTS LIST* OF PARTICIPANTS établie par le Secrétariat prepared by the Secretariat * Finalisée en tenant compte des modifications telles que indiquées par les participants. * Finalized by taking into account all changes as were indicated by participants. AVP/DC/INF/2 page 2 I. DÉLÉGATIONS MEMBRES/MEMBER DELEGATIONS (dans l’ordre alphabétique des noms français des États) (in the alphabetical order of the names in French of the States) AFGHANISTAN Tariq Ahmad SARFARAZ, Official, Ministry of Trade and Industries, Kabul AFRIQUE DU SUD/SOUTH AFRICA Chef de la délégation/Head of the Delegation Bheki Winston Joshua LANGA, Ambassador, Embassy of South Africa, Beijing Chef suppléant de la délégation/Alternate Head of the Delegation Thabo Esrom THAGE, Minister, Embassy of South Africa, Beijing Délégués/Delegates Greg MUNYAI, Minister (Trade), Embassy of South Africa, Beijing Themba Frank PHIRI, Deputy Director-General, Information and Communication Technology Policy, Department of Communication, Pretoria Nontise Renah LUSIBA (Ms.), Chief Director, Department of Communication, Pretoria Mashilo Gibson Simon BOLOKA, Director, Department of Arts and Culture, Pretoria Lucy Masabatha MAHLANGU (Ms.), Director, Department of Arts and Culture, Pretoria
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Paul De La Morinerie MGIMO's French Connection He Relationship Between France and Russia Has “Tsomething Unique
    #2/2018 The Trianon Dialogue in Versailles Aleksandar Vučić “Serbia is a genuine friend of the Russian people” MGIMO – Patrick Sciences Po Pouyanné 25 years “We need a renaissance of Excellence of courage in our leaders” Paul de La Morinerie MGIMO's French connection he relationship between France and Russia has “Tsomething unique. It arises from the attraction and mutual recognition of two peoples enamored of absolute, beauty and truth” Jacques Chirac CONTENTS A number of anniversaries 34 26 were celebrated at MGIMO: School of International Relations has turned 75, School of International Economy – 60, Journalism School – 50 101 12 MGIMO’s exchange agreement with Sciences Po 128 and Business School of Konstantin Palace is the state residence of Nancy opened doors for the Russian President just outside St. international students to 210 Petersburg. It is often referred to as Russia and France ‘Russian Versailles’. And it is no coincidence that V. Putin chose this venue for negotiations with his French counterpart 206 Anton Tokovinin (left) is in charge of MGIMO’s Proxenos Chorus. In 1948, a most high-profile Boris Belozerov is a member of diplomatic scandal took place two clubs – of the popular Russian between USSR and USA, which TV game show “What? Where? resulted in the consulates being When?” and of “World Energy 202 closed down 52 Policy” club START History and Modernity of the State Early in 2020, the current MGIMO VIP SERBIA Dialogue, which has emerged from a of Israel. The Ambassador of Israel Development Strategy will expire, meeting
    [Show full text]
  • Do European Union Defense Initiatives Threaten NATO? by Kori N
    No. 184 Strategic Forum August 2001 Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Do European Union Defense Initiatives Threaten NATO? by Kori N. Schake Building a capacity for “the eventual multilaterally to ensure that EU choices are Key Points framing of a common defense policy which consistent with U.S. national interests. uropean Security and Defense Policy might in time lead to common defense” has An enormous amount of the work needed (ESDP) is now the main item on Europe’s been a major European Union (EU) preoccu- to translate the St. Malo agreement into prac- Esecurity agenda because of a focus on pation since the Maastricht Treaty in 1991. tice has been done in the European Union and establishing a crisis management force capa- The Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 defined the in national planning staffs to advance the ble of acting independently of the North area for defense coordination as “humanitar- prospects for EU defense policy and capabilities. Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). ian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks, and However, more work has been done to create an Although transatlantic policies will be tasks of combat forces in crisis management, organizational structure than to improve forces colored by issues such as the Kyoto treaty, including peacemaking” (known as the Pe- to carry out the mandate. missile defenses, and relations with Russia, tersburg Tasks). The project gained momen- ESDP is likely to dominate defense debates tum after Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great New Structures as the European Union (EU) tries to meet the Britain and President Jacques Chirac of France agreed at St.
    [Show full text]
  • Globsec Nato Adaptation Initiative
    GLOBSEC NATO ADAPTATION INITIATIVE ONE ALLIANCE The Future Tasks of the Adapted Alliance www.globsec.org 2 GLOBSEC NATO ADAPTATION INITIATIVE GLOBSEC NATO ADAPTATION INITIATIVE ONE ALLIANCE The Future Tasks of the Adapted Alliance PRESENTATION FOLDER: COLLECTION OF PAPERS ONE ALLIANCE THE FUTURE TASKS OF THE ADAPTED ALLIANCE The GLOBSEC NATO Adaptation Initiative, led by General (Retd.) John R. Allen, is GLOBSEC’s foremost contribution to debates about the future of the Alliance. Given the substantial changes within the global security environment, GLOBSEC has undertaken a year-long project, following its annual Spring conference and the July NATO Summit in Warsaw, to explore challenges faced by the Alliance in adapting to a very different strategic environment than that of any time since the end of the Cold War. The Initiative integrates policy expertise, institutional knowledge, intellectual rigour and industrial perspectives. It ultimately seeks to provide innovative and thoughtful solutions for the leaders of the Alliance to make NATO more a resilient, responsive and efficient anchor of transatlantic stability. The policy papers published within the GLOBSEC NATO Adaptation Initiative are authored by the Initiative’s Steering Committee members: General (Retd.) John R. Allen, Admiral (Retd.) Giampaolo di Paola, General (Retd.) Wolf Langheld, Professor Julian Lindley-French, Ambassador (Retd.) Tomáš Valášek, Ambassador (Retd.) Alexander Vershbow and other acclaimed authorities from the field of global security and strategy. 4 GLOBSEC NATO ADAPTATION INITIATIVE CREDITS CREDITS GLOBSEC NATO Adaptation Initiative Steering Committee General (Retd.) John R. Allen1, Professor Dr Julian Lindley-French, Admiral (Retd.) Giampaolo Di Paola, General (Retd.) Wolf Langheld, Ambassador (Retd.) Tomáš Valášek, Ambassador (Retd.) Alexander Vershbow Observers and Advisors General (Retd.) Knud Bartels, James Townsend, Dr Michael E.
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Reinforcement: CSDP and NATO in the Face of Rising Challenges”, Focus Stratégique, No
    Études de l’Ifri Focus stratégique 93 MUTUAL REINFORCEMENT CSDP and NATO in the Face of Rising Challenges Corentin BRUSTLEIN (ed.) October 2019 Security Studies Center The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non-governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the authors alone. ISBN: 979-10-373-0082-9 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2019 How to cite this publication: Corentin Brustlein (ed.), “Mutual Reinforcement: CSDP and NATO in the Face of Rising Challenges”, Focus stratégique, No. 93, Ifri, October 2019. Ifri 27 rue de la Procession 75740 Paris Cedex 15 – FRANCE Tel. : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00 – Fax : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Email: [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Focus stratégique Resolving today’s security problems requires an integrated approach. Analysis must be cross-cutting and consider the regional and global dimensions of problems, their technological and military aspects, as well as their media linkages and broader human consequences. It must also strive to understand the far-reaching and complex dynamics of military transformation, international terrorism and post-conflict stabilization. Through the “Focus stratégique” series, Ifri’s Security Studies Center aims to do all this, offering new perspectives on the major international security issues in the world today.
    [Show full text]
  • Secretariat Distr.: Limited
    UNITED NATIONS ST /SG/SER.C/L.615 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Secretariat Distr.: Limited 6 October 2006 PROTOCOL AND LIAISON LIST OF DELEGATIONS TO THE SIXTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY I. MEMBER STATES Page Page Afghanistan.........................................................................5 Cyprus.............................................................................. 32 Albania ...............................................................................5 Czech Republic ................................................................ 33 Algeria ...............................................................................6 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea .......................... 34 Andorra...............................................................................7 Denmark........................................................................... 35 Angola ................................................................................7 Djibouti ............................................................................ 36 Antigua and Barbuda ..........................................................8 Dominica.......................................................................... 36 Argentina............................................................................8 Dominican Republic......................................................... 37 Armenia..............................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Notebook: from Common Foreign and Security Policy to European External Action Service: EU Peacekeeping Operations
    Jean Monnet Center of Excellence Research on Crucial Issues of European Integration University of Macedonia Thessaloniki Greece Notebook: From Common Foreign and Security Policy to European External Action Service: EU Peacekeeping operations Submitted by: Kyriakos Lefkopoulos Supervision: Voskopoulos George, Associate Professor The European Commission's support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein Time frame of EU peacekeeping operations Key points in the development of peacekeeping operations under European Union Western European Union [WEU] Council introduced the “Petersberg tasks” (1992) The British-French Summit St-Malo and the Cologne European Council, (1998- 1999) “Petersberg tasks” integrated in the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) Helsinki headline goal of 1999-2003 Civilian headline goal of 2000 European Council in Nice setting the foundations for the “Berlin Plus Agreement” (2000) Treaty of Nice and the bodies supporting operational capabilities (2003) European Security Strategy (2003) Military headline goal of 2004-2010 Civilian headline goal of 2008 Lisbon Treaty (2009) Civilian headline goal 2010 Creation of European External Action Service [EEAS] (2011) EEAS goals and missions Introduction of the “Petersberg tasks” by the Western European Union [WEU] Council (1992) Information about WEU ■ The Treaty on Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration and Collective Self- Defence signed in 1948 by the UK, France, and the Benelux countries, known as the Brussels Treaty, is its foundation. Afterwards the Treaty of Brussels was modified in October 1954 resulting to WEU.
    [Show full text]