-
European Armaments Standardisation
The standardisation of armaments has been a long-standing focus of EU efforts to enhance the Union’s military effectiveness, to improve capability development and to support the competitiveness of the European defence industry. Armaments standardisation is a process that can lead to cost savings for defence spending by injecting added-value in defence production processes and the avoidance of capability and equipment duplication. Standardisation is a method of improving interoperability within and between European armed forces and a process that can enhance the operational effectiveness of Europe’s militaries. Both the EU and NATO have taken measures over many years and decades to enhance armaments standardisation in Europe. Yet the nature of the contemporary global defence market is that many more technologies and components integrated into military systems are sourced and/or produced in the civilian sector. The line drawn between defence equipment and capabilities on the one hand, and civilian products and technologies on the other, is increasingly blurred. In this context, and in relation to recent developments on EU defence cooperation, this study analyses the standardisation approaches taken by the EU in relation to maritime information sharing and remotely piloted aircraft systems. It makes recommendations on how EU approaches to armaments standardisation can be expanded and enhanced.
Study for the European Parliament, 2018
-
America First, Third Offset Second?
In 2014, the US Department of Defense announced that it would embark on a new defence innovation initiative termed the ‘Third Offset Strategy’. This Obama-era strategy was conceived to overcome the perceived military-technological rise of states such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Since the election of President Donald Trump, however, questions about the continued relevance of the Third Offset Strategy have emerged. Daniel Fiott considers the factors that are driving forward defence innovation efforts in the US under the current administration, and the challenges of doing so.
The RUSI Journal, Vol. 163, No. 4
-
European Defence Markets and Industries: New Initiatives, New Challenges
The author discusses how the excessive focus of European countries on national priorities have been leading to a number of structural problems, in the European defence market, related to international competition, military redundancies and unnecessary costs. The article reflects on the recent efforts by the EU to support the European Defense and Technological Industrial Base and it concludes with some thoughts on the challenges facing the EU and the European defence market. The paper is structured in three major parts. First, it provides an overview of recent initiatives on EU defence. Second, it examines the latest developments designed to turn these initiatives into action. Third, it concludes by outlining some strategic elements important in the context of future European defence, notably the required balance between the political will of Member States, the European financial incentives for defence and the potential interest of European industry on these incentives.
Instituto da Defensa Nacional, 2018, No. 150
-
Yearbook of European Security 2018
Abstract
The EUISS Yearbook of European Security (YES) 2018 is the Institute’s annual publication compiling key information and data related to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) in 2017. YES 2018 opens with a preface by Federica Mogherini, High Representative for the Union’s Foreign and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission (HR/VP). While the HR/VP recognises that ‘the very idea of a rules-based international order is questioned’, the EU ‘has emerged as a reliable force for diplomacy, dialogue and multilateralism’. YES 2018 provides an account of the EU’s engagement with the world through evidence-based, data-rich chapters that are designed to inform policymakers and officials, experts and academics and think tank representatives about the progress made by the EU and the challenges it faced in 2017.
All of the familiar features of the YES are present in this edition including details about the organisational aspects of the European External Action Service (EEAS), EU partners, restrictive measures, geographic instruments, CSDP missions and operations, EU agencies and bodies and the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base. However, this year’s version of the Yearbook includes new features including: an overview of the work programmes of the presidencies of the Council of the EU as they relate to foreign, security and defence policy; narratives of the EU’s engagement with select countries and regions in its southern and eastern neighbourhoods and the wider world; an overview of new EU defence initiatives such as Permanent Structured Cooperation; and a new chapter on European security that focuses on the internal-external nexus and cybersecurity. Furthermore, to improve the readability of the 2018 Yearbook there are a host of informative data visualisations and for the first time the Yearbook includes a statistical annex for data and an index for reference purposes.
EUISS Book, 2019 (written with Jakub Bund)
-
EU Defence Capability Development: Plans, Priorities, Projects
Enthusiasts of strategic studies will be familiar with the tripartite, quasi-mathematical equation of ends, ways and means. Over a period of 18 months or so – beginning in June 2016 with the publication of the EU Global Strategy (EUGS) and culminating with Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) in December 2017 – the European Union has made strides on both ends and ways for greater cooperation in the area of defence. On ends, the EUGS has made clear that while Europeans ‘live in times of existential crisis’ the EU aims to improve security, democracy and prosperity and to invest in the resilience of states and societies in its wider neighbourhood in an integrated manner, while also supporting cooperative regional orders and a rules-based global order. On ways, the EUGS indicates that the Union must develop full spectrum capabilities as part of its overall approach to foreign and security policy and it must ‘systematically encourage defence cooperation and strive to create a solid European defence industry’.
On means, however, there is still some way to go before the EU has the defence capabilities required to meet its strategic objectives. Despite the publication of an Implementation Plan on Security and Defence (IPSD), the development of a Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), a European Defence Fund (EDF) and PESCO, there are challenges related to defence capability development in a Union of 28 – soon to be 27 – member states.
EUISS Policy Brief, 2018, No. 6
-
Humanitarian Diplomacy
Humanitarian diplomacy has emerged as a concept to promote and dissuade certain types of humanitarian action. The concept took hold mainly in the post-Second World War era and the advent of global humanitarianism. It is a distinct form of diplomacy. Governments, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations “conduct” humanitarian diplomacy in the hope of influencing the policies of other governments and international organizations. Humanitarian diplomacy also looks to raise public awareness about humanitarian issues. The concept is, however, not free from controversy or from challenges.
The Encyclopaedia of Diplomacy, 2018
-
Protecting Europe, Permanently? The Future of EU Defence
One of the first initiatives that emerged from the EU Global Strategy was the formation of a single military planning and conduct capability for the strategic command of some of the EU’s military CSDP operations. The logic is that having a single command structure for operations, as opposed to an individual structure for each operation, would improve the EU’s reaction time to crises. This is certainly true but one must consider that many factors such as a lack of financing and capabilities (both human and material) and complex rules of engagement affect the effectiveness of CSDP operations.
Luckily, EU-funded defence research projects are already off the ground but the real test will be whether the fund leads to the development of capabilities that can enhance Europe’s ability to act strategically and autonomously.
The coordinated annual review on defence is another interesting initiative. The rationale for such a review is valid, as the idea is that the European Defence Agency can assist member states overcome national and unsynchronised defence planning. The review should certainly lead to greater coherence of defence spending and capability priorities, but a key challenge will be generating the right degree of transparency among member states. The early signs are good but one must remember that the review is entirely voluntary and so it cannot be taken as a given that every member state will engage in a constructive manner.
Another major step forward has been the establishment of a European Defence Fund by the European Commission. Under the fund, the EU will – for the first time – invest in defence research and capability development. While the bulk of investments will be made after 2020, the Commission has already earmarked €90 million for defence research until the end of 2019 and it has made a proposal to spend €500 million on capability development from 2019 to 2020. This puts the Commission in the higher tier of defence investors in Europe but there is still much work to be done on knowing where best to target EU funds to help the development transition from defence technologies to scalable capabilities. Luckily, EU-funded defence research projects are already off the ground but the real test will be whether the fund leads to the development of capabilities that can enhance Europe’s ability to act strategically and autonomously.
How will PESCO lead to closer defence cooperation when it is still a largely intergovernmental affair governed by the unanimity principle?
Finally, we end 2017 with an historic agreement on Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). PESCO is a treaty-based political framework that takes a contractual approach to defence cooperation based on common binding commitments and projects. These commitments will be subject to an annual review by the HR/VP to provide top-down support. PESCO is already leading to interesting common projects such as cyber threat response teams, a crisis response operation core, military mobility and many more. However, despite the momentous nature of PESCO a number of questions still remain, including: how will PESCO lead to closer defence cooperation when it is still a largely intergovernmental affair governed by the unanimity principle?
There can be no doubt that the EU has collectively taken great strides on its defence over the past year. However, we must see all of these initiatives as a means to an end – a more responsive, more capable and more responsible EU. Thus, the real mark of whether these initiatives will improve EU defence will come when the Union is a more capable defence actor that can stand up to a range of security challenges. The key will be maintaining this momentum; both in bad and good times.
The Progressive Post, 2017
-
Towards Military Mobility?
The idea that the transportation of military personnel and equipment within Europe is still subject to physical, legal and regulatory barriers may seem odd, especially given the freedom of movement experienced under the Schengen Agreement and the nature of collective deterrence as defined by NATO’s founding Washington Treaty. NATO has established a working group and developed customs formalities that are designed to promote military transportation across Europe. Yet the issue of military mobility is exercising policy minds in important ways. Concerned that administrative procedures were unnecessarily slowing down cross-border movements in the EU, a European Parliament report on defence in October 2016 called for a sort of ‘military Schengen’ for the rapid movement of defence forces, personnel, equipment and supplies in the EU (especially in the context of any possible invocation of the solidarity clause (Article 222 TFEU) by member states).
Since then, however, not only was an EU joint communication on improving military mobility published on 9 November 2017, but a dedicated action plan will be released by March 2018. The aim of these documents is to first fully map out the nature of the barriers to military mobility in Europe and to propose some concrete initiatives that can overcome them.
EUISS Policy Brief, 2017, No. 31
-
EU-NATO Cooperation: The Case of Defense R&D
The aim of this chapter is to analyze how the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) stimulate defense research and development (R&D) cooperation among their respective members. The chapter also seeks to understand how, if at all, the EU and NATO cooperate with each other as organizations in the domain of defense R&D. Looking at each organization separately and then as interrelated institutions, this chapter aims to offer readers a clearer understanding of how European governments cooperate with one another for pursuing defense R&D.
In: Karampekios, N., Oikonomou, I., Carayannis, E. (eds) The Emergence of EU Defense Research Policy. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. Springer, Cham.
-
Permanent Structured Cooperation: What’s in a Name?
Abstract
Permanent Structured Cooperation (PeSCo), the so-called ‘sleeping beauty’ of EU defence, is awake. Still barely predictable only a year ago, PeSCo is an ambitious, binding and inclusive legal framework aimed at incentivising defence cooperation among member states. PeSCo is based on binding commitments between member states that could promote increased defence spending, improve force commitments for EU operations and stimulate European defence equipment programmes. In addition to the regular assessment of these commitments, PeSCo will also house a number of concrete projects designed to improve the effectiveness of EU military operations and to sustain European capability development. Taken together, these elements are designed to potentially shape national mindsets and practices in defence through a structured framework at the EU level.
Elaborating on the likely form and extent of PeSCo, this Chaillot Paper not only sketches out the historical metamorphosis of PeSCo but it also looks more specifically at how it could change the operational and capability development dynamics of EU defence cooperation. The paper is not primarily occupied with questions about its finalité politique, but it is rather an analytical guide to assist experts and lay readers alike navigate the major operational and capability issues at stake.
Chaillot Paper, EU Institute for Security Studies, No. 142 (written with Antonio Missiroli and Thierry Tardy)
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
