THESIS - COMMON EUROPEAN DEFENCE POLICY

  • Published on
    27-Jan-2017

  • View
    175

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • 2001

    :

  • ABSTRACT

    1.

    2. ;

    3. 1990

    4. ,

    1990

    5.

    ;

    6.

    7.

  • -

    1

    ABSTRACT

    Our purpose in the present study is to demonstrate that the request

    for the formation of a common defence policy within the framework of

    the European Union aims at a) the creation of a system which will

    guarantee the security of the member -states of the latter from the new

    dangers of the post -cold war era, b) the maintenance of the power

    balance between the three great European Powers, that is of Great

    Britain, France and Germany and c) in the long -term counterbalance of

    the American power in the area of defence on be half of the European

    Powers and by extension of the subordinate balance in areas such as

    commerce and economy.

    The theoretical foundation is presented in the first section of the

    study on which the total amount of arguments is built upon in an

    attempt to prove the above mentioned position. The firm axis on this

    issue are the following: a) the foreign affair policy of the states is

    designed to serve the national interest, b) the kind and the content of

    the national interest are defined by the prevalent sit uation in a given

    time period within the state and overseas as well as by the political and

    cultural environment of each state, c) the survival of a state l ies in the

    core of the national interest , d) power is the means in furtherance of

    the national interest , e) the government of a state is the qualified organ

    for the mapping, the formation and the enhancement of the politics of

    foreign affairs, f) the essence of politics of foreign affairs is

    interwoven with the essence of a state and vice versa and g) th e

    international actors except for the states do not perform a foreign affair

    policy.

    The reasons why the European Union is not possible to be a

    European hyper-state, despite the fact that the member -states have

    moved forward to an insti tutional level in se tting up the second pillar

    under the title Common Foreign and Security Policy, will be

    presented in the second section. More specifically, problems will be

  • -

    2

    discussed such as the specification of a) the subject from which and

    thanks to which the common European foreign affairs policy will

    originate from, b) the nature of the subject in question, c) the apparatus

    which will be established as the vehicle of carrying out the common

    European foreign affairs policy and d) the content of the European

    interest and the means for i ts application. Nevertheless, the fact that

    the requirements for the formation of a common European defence and

    security policy have already started to take shape creates justifiable

    questions as far as the nature of the European Union a nd the

    expediency of the CFSP.

    The third section presents the main developments at both the

    institutional and declaration level during the 1990s as far as the

    formation of CFSP in relation to the common European defence policy.

    The most important findings here are that a) the development of a

    common defence policy and the process towards the creation of an

    army is restricted for the time being in carrying out a peace or a crisis

    management operation on the condition that NATO does not wish to

    take part in these directly, b) the common defence policy clearly

    assumes inter-governmental character, c) the various defence policies

    of the member-states are definitely respectable, d) the cooperation of

    the European Union at the level of military infrastructure and

    technological advancement with NATO and the West European Union

    must be taken for granted as it is essential for the success of this

    venture, e) the management of the collective defence of the member -

    states of the European Union is left upon NATO and the W est European

    Union, without betraying the prospect of the creation of its own

    autonomous system of collective defence. All this verifies the

    conclusion arrived at in the previous section that is that the European

    Union does not have the potential to becom e a hyper-state as long as

    the common European defence policy has a limited content, its

    character is inter-governmental and it is dependent on NATO.

    What the fourth section includes are the firm characteristics of the

    Foreign Affairs polit ics of the three great European Powers in relation

  • -

    3

    to the European Continent as well as their political choices which aim

    at the adjustment of the above mentioned firm characteristics in the

    face of the new facts of the international system after the end of the

    Cold War. The institutional adjustments and the declarations of the

    1990s about the shaping of the common European defence policy

    reflect the efforts of the aforementioned countries to maintain a power

    balance and moreover to face the unstable situation in East Euro pe and

    more specifically in the Balkan area.

    The fifth section delineates the relation among the European Union,

    the USA and NATO as far as the issues of the common European

    defence politicy are concerned. The European Union for the time being

    is in need of the USA and NATO support in order to develop a defence

    identity since it does not have modern technological means at its

    disposal. Thus, it is obvious that no discussions are undertaken of the

    possibility of developing any European defence init iative in

    circumstances that this is not desirable by each American

    administration. In parallel to this though, the European counterpart

    lays the foundations for the undertaking of more responsibil it ies in the

    defence sector so as to balance gradually the American d ominance and,

    at the same time, to create the necessary structure for the safeguarding

    of the European security in case of releasing the USA from Europe in

    the future.

    In the last section the pieces are put together and the conclusions,

    which are presented, confirm the initial hypothesis of the present

    study.

  • -

    4

    )

    , -

    , )

    ,

    , )

    .

    ,

    .

    : )

    , )

    ,

    , )

    , )

    , )

    ,

    , )

    , )

    .

    ,

    ,

    -

    .

    , : ) ,

  • -

    5

    , ) , )

    ,

    )

    .

    .

    1990

    .

    : )

    )

    , )

    -

    , )

    , )

    -

    , ,

    .

    o

    ,

    ,

  • -

    6

    .

    ,

    .

    1990

    .

    .

    ,

    . ,

    ,

    . , ,

    ,

    .

    , .

  • -

    7

    1.

    , .

    ,

    , .

    ,

    .1

    , ,

    ,

    .

    .2

    ,

    .3

    ,

    .4

    Graham Allison ,

    , ,

    1 . , - , ,

    , . , 1985 , . 21

    2 Ibid , . 118, - , -

    , , , , 1985, . 203

    3 . , . 120 .

    4 . Hans Morgenthau, Poli t ics among Nat ions , New York, Alfred Knopf, 1966,

    . 5 , -

    , . 188 . , , . 120 .

  • -

    8

    .5

    ,

    . , , Allison

    . ,

    .

    ,

    .6

    , ,

    . ,

    (.. , , , .),

    5 . Graham Al l ison, Conceptua l Models and the Cuban Mis s i le Cr isi s in The

    Amer ican Poli t ical Science Review, Volume LXIII , Number 3 , September 1969,

    . 689.

    , . Graham Al li son

    Morton Halper in, Bureaucra tic Pol i t ics: Parad igm and Some Policy Implicat ions

    in Theory and Pol icy in In ternat ional Rela tions , Raymond Tanter Richard

    Ullman edi t . , London, Pr inceton Uni vers i ty Press, 1972, . 40.

    Allison . Steve Smith ,

    :

    , Michael Clark Bryan White

    . , , , 1993, . 97

    6 Ibid , . 691 .

  • -

    9

    .

    ,

    .7

    ,

    ,

    ,

    .

    .8

    Allison

    .

    ,

    .9

    Allison

    7 Ibid , . 698 .

    8 Ibid , . 707 .

    9 Ibid , . 715 .

    .

  • -

    10

    .10

    Hans Morgenthau o

    ,

    .11

    ,

    ,

    ,

    .12

    .

    , ,

    .13

    , ,

    .14

    , ,

    .

    .

    10

    . Steve Smith , . 97 - 116

    11 . Hans Morgenthau, . 5

    12 Ibid , . 9

    13

    . Martin Wight , - ,

    , , , 1998, . 123 .

    14 . - , . 188 . ,

    , . 118 -

    , - , , ,

    , 1997, . 234

  • -

    11

    .15

    ,

    ,

    ,

    .16

    ,

    ,

    ,

    li te .17

    ,

    15

    . , . 118 -119

    16 . - , . 141 .

    , , ,

    , 1999, . 32 .

    17 . Walker Connor

    , Walker Connor ,

    Ethnonat ional ism The Quest for Unders tanding , Pr ince ton New Jersey,

    Pr inceton Universi ty Press, 1994, . 95 . , . Lisbeth Aggestam , A

    Common Fore ign and Secur i ty Pol icy: Role Concept ions and the Poli t ics o f

    Identi ty in the E.U . in Securi ty and Ident i ty in Europe Exploring the New

  • -

    12

    .18

    ,

    ,

    .

    . , ,

    .19

    ,

    .

    (,

    , , , ,

    .).20

    ,

    ,

    , ,

    .21

    Agenda , edi t . by Aggestam Lisbe th and Hyde-Price Adr ian, London New York,

    Macmil lan Press LTD St . Mar tin s Press INC . , 2000, . 89 .

    18 . Adr ian Hyde Price, Reflect ions on Secur i ty and Ident i ty in Europe, in

    Security and Iden ti ty in Europe Explor ing the New Agenda , ed it . by Aggestam

    Lisbeth and Hyde-Pr ice Adrian, London New York, Macmillan Press LTD S t .

    Mart ins Press INC. , 2000, . 27

    19 . Hans Morgenthau, . 154

    20 . - , .

    242 .

    21 )

    , )

    () )

  • -

    13

    prestige.22

    , ,

    ,

    .

    .23

    .

    ,

    ,

    ,

    ,

    .24

    ( , )

    ()

    . Kenneth Waltz , Theory of Interna tional Poli t ics , Reading ,

    Massachuse tt s -Menlo Park, Cal i fornia -Don Mill s , Ontar io , Addison-Wesley

    Publ ishing Company , 1979, . 89 . 103 . , ,

    , , . 32 .

    . , ,

    , :

    ,

    12, 1998, . 81 - 107

    22 . Hans Morgenthau, . 42 -43

    23 Ibid , . 30

    24 . - , .

    236

  • -

    14

    ( ).

    . A contrario

    -

    .25

    . ,

    ,

    ,

    .26

    .27

    , , ,

    .28

    .29

    25

    . Hans Morgenthau , . 42 . 48 .

    , . 32 .

    26 . , . 107

    27 . , . 107, David Allen, Who speaks for

    Europe? The Search for an Effec tive and Coherent External Policy in A Common

    Fore ign Policy for Europe? , edi t . by Peterson J . Sjursen H. , London, Rout ledge,

    1998, . 43

    28 . Constant ine Stephanou, The Federal i sat ion of Western Europe , Athens,

    Panteion Universi ty o f Social and Pol i t ica l Sciences Inst i tute o f Internat ional

    Rela t ions, June 1991 , . 16

    29 , ,

    ,

    ( ) .

  • -

    15

    2. ;

    ,

    ,

    : ) ,

    , )

    , ) ,

    )

    .

    , . ,

    ,

    1993.

    , , :

    .

    .

    ,

    ,

    ,

    .

    , ,

    .

    ,

    ,

  • -

    16

    . ,

    , , .

    , ,

    ,

    .

    ,

    .

    -

    ,

    ,

    .30

    ,

    ,

    .

    - ,

    30

    . Jean Monnet , , , ,

    , 1988, . 373, Leo Tindemans ,

    21

    , ,

    , , 1999, . 307, Mark Mazower , Dark Cont inen t

    Europe s Twentieth Century , London New York Ringwood Toronto

    Auckland , Penguin Books , 1999, . 406

  • -

    17

    ,

    20

    .

    , .31

    ,

    .

    ,

    ,

    .32

    1950

    .

    ad hoc .

    (spil lover).

    31

    . David Mitrany, The Functional Theory of Poli t ics , London, London School

    of Econo mics Mar tin Rober tson , 1975

    Jeffrey Doerr , The Arming o f a

    European Supers tate? , Burke, Chate la ine Press , 1997, . 136 .

    , . 133 .

    .

    Mario Telo ,

    21

    ,

    , , , 199 9, . 259 .

    - , . 120 123

    32 Ibid

  • -

    18

    ,

    .

    .33

    1950

    .

    Euratom .

    ,

    .34

    1966

    , -

    -

    .35

    ,

    ,

    ,

    33

    Ibid

    34 . Jeffrey Doer r , . 137 - 138

    35 . , . 251 . , ,

    , ,

    , , , 1999, . 87 .

  • -

    19

    .

    -

    ,

    ,

    ,

    .36

    consensus .

    ,

    , , .37

    .

    -.

    -

    ,

    .38

    1991

    ,

    .39

    (, Euratom ),

    36

    . , , .

    251 .

    37

    . Henry Schermers

    Niels Blokker , In ternational Inst i tut ional Law Uni ty with in Diversi ty , The

    Hague London Boston, Mar tinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995, . 977 .

    38 . Mark Mazo wer, . 408

    39 . John Van Oudenaren, European Integra t ion: A His tory of Three Treat ies in

    Europe Today Nat ional Poli t ics , European Integrat ion and European Securi ty ,

    edit . by Tiersky Ronald, Maryland, Rowman and Li t t le f ield Publ ishers INC., 1999,

    . 265 .

  • -

    20

    1986

    .

    - , )

    , )

    , )

    , , )

    , ) , )

    , ) , )

    ) .

    -

    , , ,

    ,

    .40

    ()

    (),

    1986

    , 1970

    -

    ....

Recommended

View more >