‘Talking the Talk or Walking the Walk’: Understanding the EU's Security Identity

Abstract

How do European Union security practices constitute the EU as an 'actor' in global politics? Debates about the EU's actorness are as old as the concept of European integration itself. Christopher J. Bickerton has argued that rather than debating the EU's role in global politics from the perspective of 'actorness', research should focus on the functions of EU policy practices and the role they play in defining and creating that 'actorness'. His approach leaves unquestioned the relationship between identity, interests and these practices. This article reorients these discussions towards the literature on security, identity and foreign policy. It argues that security practices are performative, that they play an active role in constructing the 'selves' they claim to protect and the 'others' deemed threatening or as targets for intervention. It proceeds by examining twenty-firstcentury European security practices in order to understand what, if any, security identity the EU is constructing.

European Civil Security Governance

“…While useful, governance approaches might be hard pressed to explain some of what is happening in this empirical area. First, scholars interested in the EU's security identity (Wivel, 2005;Anderson, 2008;McDonagh, 2014) and security communities (Adler and Barnett, 1998; could find an expanded array of evidence to work with here. That said, the question of the EU as a security 'actor' would need to be adjusted to the EU's crisis management capacity building (see Ekengren, in this volume) since the EU's role in managing crises varies both internally and externally (Eriksson and Rhinard, 2009;Wolff et al, 2013).…”

Military operations and the EU’s identity as an international security actor

“…For a start, we only focus on the EU military missions proper (in accordance with the EU's own classification) and thus exclude the EU's civilian missions. Military operations are the most visible outcome of the battle of ideas about the identity of the EU as an international security actor (McDonagh 2015). While the number of civilian missions launched under CSDP 3 is much higher than that of military missions, they do not touch upon the key dimension of contestation: the collective use of military force.…”

From the ESS to the EU Global Strategy: external policy, internal purpose

“…For the more upbeat, the EU is a ÔpostmodernÕ polity, transcending the territorial state; 6 a Ônormative/ethical powerÕ, 7 awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 Ôfor over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in EuropeÕ, 8 or indeed an emerging Ôglobal powerÕ. 9 For others, it is a Ôfringe playerÕ in the traditional diplomatic order of states; 10 a Ôtragic actorÕ, 11 who has been Ôsleepwalking into ever deeper strategic commitments with scant strategic thoughtÕ; 12 bound to battle with the perpetual Ôcapabilities-expectationsÕ gap, 13 with a security identity Ôstill in its infancyÕ 14 due to its inability to forge a strategic culture before developing as a supranational federal state. 15 The first security strategy of the Union Ð the European Security Strategy (ESS) of 2003 Ð is no exception.…”