Between conflict management and role conflict: the EU in the Libyan crisis

Abstract

This paper assesses the role of the European Union in the Libyan crisis (2011) and critically considers the implications for its evolution as an international security actor. Employing role theory, the paper reviews the historical development of the Union's security actorness and sheds specific light on the balance between self-conception and external expectations in the case of the Libyan crisis. Its central argument is that, despite external expectations and European narratives of a 'comprehensive power role', the Libyan crisis showed that the Union still acts in line with its traditional role as a civilian power. The inability to go beyond civilian power stemmed from internal dissonance on a potential hard power role and a corresponding lack of material capabilities. The growing gap between expectations about comprehensive actorness on the one hand and performance on the other is likely to damage the Union's future credibility as an international security actor.

Europe and the ‘New’ Middle East

“…This initial unity of intent, however, quickly dissolved when the prospects for military intervention in the Libyan crisis became more concrete and diverging internal demands and visions for a European role in the conflict became evident among the member states. 58 Second, the EU has since the beginning of the crisis tried to coordinate and cooperate with other supranational bodies active in mediation efforts. This was the case with the African Union and the League of Arab States, particularly in the first phase of the civil war (2011-2012), and then more significantly with the United Nations.…”

Dual Power Conflict in Libya as a Socio-Political Transformation Process

“…Весной 2016 г. Правительство национального единства начало активное противодействие боевикам, в конце лета обратившись за помощью к США. В результате в октябре того же года силы ИГ были выдворены из нескольких городов страны (Koenig, 2014). Однако военные столкновения с ними продолжились.…”

Role conceptions, crises, and Georgia’s foreign policy

“…Elgström and Smith, 2006: 248). Several recent contributions applying role theory address role conflicts emerging in the nexus between roles and actions, although generally without problematizing the assumed link between the two (see e.g., Gashkarth, 2014: 564; Koenig, 2014; Pelletier and Massie, 2017: 302).…”