The Making of European Security

Policy

This volume addresses how and in what capacity the European Union and its
member states are able to respond to fundamental shifts occurring in global politics
and remain relevant for the future.
The changing nature of the international system is subject to considerable
contestation among scholars, with many claiming that the fundamentals of the
post-war international system are being rewritten. This volume brings together
prominent scholars in the field of European security to address a range of pertinent
issues related to Europe’s role in the context of evolving global challenges. The first
section focusses on whether the EU is an actor with a strategic nature and the means
to act on a global security strategy. The second section considers the institutional
dynamics and the approaches at the EU’s disposal to fulfil its possible intended
global roles. The third section addresses Europe’s most important strategic
relationship—the partnership it has with the United States. This section considers
the recalibration of the transatlantic relationship in light of the changing
international system and the reorientation of U.S. foreign policy.
This book will be of much interest to students of European Union policy,
European Security Policy, European Foreign Policy and International Relations in
general.

Roberta N. Haar is Professor of Foreign Policy Analysis and Transatlantic

Relations, Maastricht University, and the Research Director at University College
Maastricht within the Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University,
the Netherlands.

Thomas Christiansen is Professor of Political Science and European Integration at

Luiss University, Italy, and Part-time Professor at the Faculty of Arts and Social
Sciences Maastricht University, the Netherlands.

Sabina Lange is Senior Lecturer at the European Institute of Public Adm-

inistration, the Netherlands, and Associate Professor in International Relations at
the Faculty of Social Science of the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Sophie Vanhoonacker is Professor in Administrative Governance at the Faculty of

Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands.
Routledge Studies in European Security and Strategy

The aim of this series is to bring together the key experts on European security
from the academic and policy worlds, and assess the state of play of the EU as
an international security actor. The series explores the EU, and its member
states, security policy and practices in a changing global and regional context.
While the focus is on the politico-military dimension, security is put in the
context of the holistic approach advocated by the EU.
Series Editors:
Sven Biscop
Egmont Royal Institute for International Relations, Belgium
and
Richard Whitman
University of Kent, UK
Defence Industrial Cooperation in the European Union
The State, the Firm and Europe
Daniel Fiott
European Defence Decision-Making
Dilemmas of Collaborative Arms Procurement
Antonio Calcara
Europe in an Era of Growing Sino-American Competition
Coping with an Unstable Triangle
Edited by Sebastian Biba and Reinhard Wolf
The Making of European Security Policy
Between Institutional Dynamics and Global Challenges
Edited by Roberta N. Haar, Thomas Christiansen, Sabina Lange and Sophie
Vanhoonacker

For more information about this series, visit: https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-

Studies-in-European-Security-and-Strategy/book-series/SESS
The Making of European
Security Policy
Between Institutional Dynamics
and Global Challenges

Edited by
Roberta N. Haar, Thomas
Christiansen, Sabina Lange,
and Sophie Vanhoonacker
First published 2021
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa
business
© 2021 selection and editorial matter, Roberta N. Haar, Thomas
Christiansen, Sabina Lange and Sophie Vanhoonacker; individual
chapters, the contributors.
The right of Roberta N. Haar, Thomas Christiansen, Sabina Lange
and Sophie Vanhoonacker to be identified as the authors of the
editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has
been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Haar, Roberta N., 1966- editor. | Christiansen, Thomas, 1965-
editor. | Lange, Sabina, 1976- editor. | Vanhoonacker, Sophie, 1962- editor.
Title: The making of European security policy : between institutional
dynamics and global challenges / edited by Roberta N. Haar, Thomas
Christiansen, Sabina Lange and Sophie Vanhoonacker.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2021. |
Series: Routledge studies in European security and strategy | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020054004 (print) | LCCN 2020054005 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367469689 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003032335 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: National security--European Union countries. |
European Union countries--Foreign relations. | European Union
countries--Relations--United States. | United States--Relations--
European Union countries. | World politics--21st century.
Classification: LCC UA646 .M358 2021 (print) | LCC UA646 (ebook) |
DDC 355/.03354--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020054004
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020054005

ISBN: 978-0-367-46968-9 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-77480-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-03233-5 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

by MPS Limited, Dehradun
To the memory of Professor Simon Duke, our friend and
colleague.
Contents

List of figures ix
List of abbreviations x
Notes on contributors xiii
Preface xix
Foreword xxi

1 Introduction: Global challenges and institutional

dynamics in the making of European security policy 1
THO MA S C HR I ST IA N SEN A ND R O BER TA N. H AAR

PART I
The EU as a global actor: From soft power to hard power 11

2 Towards European cooperative autonomy 13

NA THA LIE TO C CI

3 Normative power in the eastern neighbourhood 28

GER GA NA NOU T CH EV A

4 The challenges ahead for European cultural diplomacy 46

M AI ’A K. DA VI S C R O S S

5 Development cooperation or security policy? The EU’s

support for conflict prevention and peacebuilding in
a changing global environment 63
A NDRE W SHE RR I FF
viii Contents
PART II
Institutional dynamics and approaches 81

6 The EU’s engagement with international organisations:

NATO’s impact on the making of EU security policy 83
HA NNA O JAN E N

7 The internal and external security nexus in Europe:

Exploring and problematising its emergence 104
R APHA EL BO S SO N G A N D M ARK RH I N A RD

8 Institutionalising the integrated approach to external

conflict 124
STEV EN BL O CK M A N S A N D LO E S D E BU YS E RE

PART III
A recalibration of the transatlantic alliance 141

9 The role of China in transatlantic relations 143

EM IL KIR CH NE R

10 Reinterpreting the transatlantic relationship 159

ER IK J O NES

11 European Union diplomacy and the Trump

administration: Multilateral diplomacy in a
transactional world? 179
M ICHA EL SM I TH

12 Mogherini and the Holy Grail: The quest for European

strategic autonomy 198
SVEN BI SCO P

13 Conclusion: Towards EU strategic autonomy 214

SA BINA LA N G E A N D S OP H I E VA N H O O N ACKE R

Index 226
Figures

3.1 Political governance in the eastern neighbourhood 38

3.2 Trust in the EU and the EAEU in the eastern
neighbourhood 40
Abbreviations

ADIZ Air Defence Identification Zone

AFSJ Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
AI Artificial Intelligence
AIIB Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ASEM Asia-Europe Meeting
AU African Union
BRI Belt and Road Initiative
CA Comprehensive approach
CAI Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
CARD Coordinated Annual Review on Defence
CBRN Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear
CEPA Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement
CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy
CGEA Commissioner’s Group on External Action
CIVCOM Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management
CMPD Crisis Management and Planning Directorate
COREPER Committee of the Permanent Representatives of the
Governments of the Member States of the European Union
COSI Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on
Internal Security
CPCC Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability
CPPB Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding
CSDP Common Security and Defence Policy
DCFTA Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area
DDR Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration
DFID Department for International Development
DG(s) Directorate(s) General
Dir. ISP Directorate Integrated Approach for Security and Peace
DPRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
DSG Deputy Secretary-General
EAEU Eurasian Economic Union
EC European Commission
 Abbreviations xi
EC3 European Cybercrime Centre
ECDPM European Centre for Development Policy Management
ECHO European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid Office
EDF European Defence Fund
EEAS European External Action Service
EI2 European Intervention Initiative
EIPA European Institute for Public Administration
ENP European Neighbourhood Policy
EP European Parliament
ESC European Security Council
ESCS East and South China Sea
ESDP European Security and Defence Policy
ESS European Security Strategy
EU European Union
EUGS European Union Global Strategy
EUMC European Union Military Committee
EUROPOL European Union Agency for Law Enforcement
Cooperation
FAC Foreign Affairs Council
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FPI Foreign Policy Instruments
FRONTEX European Border and Coast Guard Agency
FTA(s) Free Trade Agreement(s)
GDP Gross domestic product
GDPR General Data Protection Regulation
HRVP High Representative and Vice President
IA Integrated approach
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
IMF International Monetary Fund
INF Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
INSTEX Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges
IO(s) International Organisation(s)
IPSD Implementation Plan on Security and Defence
ISIS Islamic State
ISP.1 Concepts, Knowledge Management and Training Unit
ISP.2 Conflict Prevention and Mediation Unit
ISP.3 Integrated Strategic Planning Unit
ISP.4 Consular Affairs Unit
JCPOA Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
JEF Joint Expeditionary Force
JHA Justice and Home Affairs
MARSUR Maritime Surveillance
MENA Middle East and North Africa
MEP(s) Member(s) of the European Parliament
MFF Multiannual Financial Framework
xii Abbreviations
MPCC Military Planning and Conduct Capability
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NDICI Neighbourhood, Development and International
Cooperation Instrument
NEAR Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations
NGO(s) Non-governmental Organisation(s)
NPT Non-Proliferation Treaty
NRF NATO Response Force
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OECD-DAC Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development’s Development Assistance Committee
OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
PESCO Permanent Structured Cooperation
PLAN People’s Liberation Army Navy
PRISM Prevention of Conflict, Rule of Law/ Security Sector
Reform, Integrated Approach, Stabilisation and Mediation
PSC Political and Security Committee
QMV Qualified Majority Voting
R&D Research & Development
R2P Responsibility to Protect
SCS South China Sea
SDG(s) Sustainable Development Goal(s)
SECDEFPOL Security and Defence Policy
SG AFFGEN Strategic Communication Division
SOE(s) State Owned Enterprise(s)
SSR Security-Sector Reform
TEU Treaty on European Union
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership
TTIP Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
UNGA United Nation General Assembly
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees in Near East
UNSC United Nation Security Council
US United States
WEU Western European Union
WGA(s) Whole-of-Government Approach(es)
WTO World Trade Organization
Contributors

Sven Biscop is a professor at Ghent University where he lectures on strategy

and the foreign policies of Belgium and the EU. In addition, he is the
Director of the Europe in the World Programme at the Egmont-Royal
Institute for International Relations in Brussels, the think-tank associated
with the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and an Honorary Fellow of
the European Security and Defence College (ESDC), an agency of the
European Union. He also is a regular speaker at the Royal Military
Academy in Brussels and at various staff colleges in Europe and America,
as well as at the People’s University of China in Beijing, where he is a
senior research associate. He chairs the jury of the annual Global Strategy
PhD Prize, awarded by Egmont and the ESDC. His latest book is
European Strategy in the 21st Century (Routledge, 2019). He has been
awarded the cross of officer of the Order of the Crown of the Kingdom of
Belgium and the Grand Decoration of Honour of the Republic of Austria.
Steven Blockmans is Director of the Centre for European Policy Studies
(CEPS) and professor of EU External Relations Law and Governance at
the University of Amsterdam. He is the author of The Obsolescence of the
European Neighbourhood Policy (RLI 2017) and Tough Love: the EU’s
relations with the Western Balkans (AP 2007). He served as rapporteur
of task forces on More Union in European Defence chaired by Javier
Solana (2015) and Regroup and Reform: Towards a More Responsive and
Effective European Union (2017). He has (co-)edited more than 15
volumes, including The EU’s Role in Global Governance (OUP 2013)
and a research handbook on The EU’s Common Foreign and Security
Policy (EE 2018). For more than 20 years, Steven has combined his
academic work with contract research carried out for EU and national
donors, consultancy activities and training for professionals. He has
advised governments of third countries on their relations with the EU and
worked on numerous technical assistance projects in wider Europe and
Asia. Before joining CEPS and UvA in 2012, Steven was Head of
Research at the Asser Institute in The Hague. From 2010 to 2014, he
was a special visiting professor at the Law Faculty of KU Leuven.
xiv Contributors
Thomas Christiansen is a professor of Political Science and European
Integration at Luiss Università Guido Carli. He is also part-time
Professor at Maastricht University and previously held positions at the
European Institute of Public Administration, at Aberystwyth University
of Wales and at Essex University. He is an executive editor of the Journal
of European Integration (Taylor and Francis) and co-editor (with Sophie
Vanhoonacker) of the ‘European Administration Governance’ book
series at Palgrave Macmillan. He has published widely on different
aspects of European Union politics and European governance. In recent
years his research has focused in particular on EU relations with Asia. He
recently co-authored, with Emil Kirchner and Uwe Wissenbach, The
European Union and China (London: Palgrave, 2019) and co-edited, with
Emil Kirchner and Han Dorussen, Security Relations between China and
the European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016). He
is co-editor of The European Union’s Security Relations with Asian
Partners (London: Routledge, forthcoming in 2021).
Mai’a K. Davis Cross is the Edward W. Brooke Professor of Political Science
and Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at
Northeastern University. She is the author of three books, the most
recent of which is The Politics of Crisis in Europe (Cambridge University
Press, 2017). Her second book, Security Integration in Europe: How
Knowledge-based Networks are Transforming the European Union
(University of Michigan Press, 2011), is the 2012 winner of the Best
Book Prize from the University Association of Contemporary European
Studies. Professor Cross has published on a wide range of topics related
to European politics, especially foreign and security policy, counter-
terrorism, intelligence sharing, diplomacy, and public diplomacy. She
holds a PhD in Politics from Princeton University and a bachelor's degree
in Government from Harvard University.
Loes Debuysere is a consultant at ACE Europe where she monitors and
evaluates international development projects and projects aimed at social
change. In the past, she worked as a researcher at the Department of
Conflict and Development Studies of Ghent University and in the foreign
policy unit of the Centre for European Policy studies (CEPS). Loes is a
graduate in Middle Eastern Studies from the School of Oriental and
African Studies (SOAS) in London. She holds a PhD from Ghent
University, which focused on gender politics and participatory
democracy theories in post-revolutionary Tunisia. She has published in
a number of academic journals (Mediterranean Politics; Middle East Law
and Governance; Review of African Political Economy; European
Foreign Affairs Review).
Roberta N. Haar holds a Chair in Foreign Policy Analysis and Transatlantic
Relations at Maastricht University and is the Research Director at
 Contributors xv
University College Maastricht, Faculty of Science and Engineering,
Maastricht University. Her research focuses on the analysis of
European and American foreign policy as well as Transatlantic
Relations. She also writes a column entitled Across the Atlantic with
Elsevier Weekblad.
Erik Jones is a professor of European Studies and International Political
Economy, and Director of European and Eurasian Studies at the Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He is also a
senior research associate at the Istituto per gli Studi di Politica
Internazionale (ISPI) in Milan. Professor Jones is author of The
Politics of Economic and Monetary Union (2002), Economic Adjustment
and Political Transformation in Small States (2008), Weary Policeman:
American Power in an Age of Austerity (2012, with Dana H. Allin), and
The Year the European Crisis Ended (2014).
Emil J. Kirchner is Jean Monnet Professor and Coordinator of the Jean
Monnet Centre of Excellence at the University of Essex. He received his
PhD from Case Western Reserve University. He is Advisory Editor and
Chair of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal of European
Integration, holder of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of
Germany, a Fellow of the British Academy of Social Sciences, and was
awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award by the University Association of
Contemporary Studies. He has been a visiting professor at universities in
various European countries, the United States and China. His recent
book publications are (co-author) The European Union and China,
Macmillan and Red Globe Press, 2019; (co-editor) EU-Japan Security
Cooperation, Routledge, 2018, (co-editor) Security Relations between
China and the European Union, Cambridge University Press, 2016, and
(co-editor) The Palgrave Handbook on EU-Asia Relations, 2013. He has
published articles in International Organization, Review of International
Studies, West European Politics, Journal of Common Market Studies,
European Security, European Foreign Affairs Review, and Journal of
European Public Policy.
Sabina Lange is senior lecturer at the European Institute of Public
Administration in (EIPA, Maastricht) where she specialises in decision-
making in the EU and interinstitutional relations, including in EU
external action policies. She is also an associate professor in
International Relations at the Faculty of Social Sciences at the
University of Ljubljana. She has published widely on the role of the
rotating Council Presidency as well as on Slovenian foreign and
European policies.
Antonio Missiroli is non-resident associate fellow at the NATO Defense
College. He was the Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security
Challenges at NATO (2018–2020). Prior to joining NATO, Dr Missiroli
xvi Contributors
was the Director of the European Union Institute for Security Studies
(EUISS) in Paris (2012–2017). Previously, he was Adviser at the Bureau
of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) of the European Commission
(2010–2012); Director of Studies at the European Policy Centre in
Brussels (2005–2010); and Senior Research Fellow at the WEU Institute
for Security Studies in Paris (1998–2005). He was also head of European
Studies at CeSPI in Rome (1994–1997) and a visiting fellow at St Antony’s
College, Oxford (1996–1997). As well as being a professional journalist, he
has taught at Bath, Trento, Boston University, SAIS/Johns Hopkins, the
College of Europe (Bruges) and Sciences Po (Paris). Dr Missiroli holds
a PhD degree in Contemporary History from the Scuola Normale
Superiore (Pisa) and a master’s degree in International Public Policy from
SAIS/Johns Hopkins University.
Gergana Noutcheva is an associate professor in International Relations and
European Foreign Policy at the Political Science Department of
Maastricht University, The Netherlands. She holds a PhD in
International Relations from the University of Pittsburgh, USA (2006).
Her research focuses on the European Neighbourhood Policy and
democratisation in the Balkans and the post-Soviet space. Her articles
have appeared in the Journal of Common Market Studies, Journal of
European Public Policy, West European Politics, East European Politics
and Societies, Journal of European Integration, Democratization,
International Spectator, Geopolitics. Prior to joining Maastricht
University, she was Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy
Studies in Brussels (2002–2006) where she published a number of articles
and policy briefs on the EU enlargement policy, the EU policy towards
the Western Balkans and the European Neighborhood Policy.
Hanna Ojanen is Senior Research Fellow at Tampere University and
Adjunct Professor at the Finnish National Defence University as well
as University of Helsinki. She holds a doctorate in political and social
sciences from the European University Institute (Florence). Her previous
positions include Jean Monnet professor at the University of Tampere
(Faculty of Management), Programme Director of the Research
Programme on the European Union, Finnish Institute of International
Affairs. Expert on European foreign, security and defence policy, her
recent research has focused on inter-organisational relations (particularly
EU–NATO–UN relations) and her book entitled The EU’s Power in
Inter-Organisational Relations was published by Palgrave Macmillan
in 2018.
Mark Rhinard is a professor of International Relations at Stockholm
University and Senior Research Fellow at the Swedish Institute of
International Affairs. He earned his MPhil and PhD degrees from
Cambridge University and has taught at Oxford and Leiden universities.
 Contributors xvii
His research examines the cooperation challenges generated by cross-border
security threats, with an emphasis on the European Union. He is the author
or co-editor of several books on security issues, including Theorising Internal
Security Cooperation in the European Union (2016, Oxford University Press)
with Raphael Bossong and Nordic Societal Security (2020, Routledge) with
Sebastian Larsson.
Andrew Sherriff is head of the European External Affairs Programme at the
think tank the European Centre for Development Policy Management
(ECDPM) based in Maastricht in the Netherlands with whom he has
worked since 2008. He has regularly been a part of teams evaluating the
implementation of the EU’s foreign, international and development
cooperation policies with over thirty different assignments in Africa,
the Eastern Neighbourhood, and Asia. Prior to ECDPM, he was an
advisor to NGOs, various European Foreign Ministries and Agencies,
and EU Presidencies, mainly on foreign policy and international
cooperation issues. From 1999 to 2004, he was at the peacebuilding
organisation International Alert, where he led on EU issues. In 2019, he
edited Investing in the Europe’s Global Role: The must have guide for the
negotiations of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027
(Maastricht: ECDPM). He is author of over 40 policy papers, book
chapters and journal articles covering Europe’s international relations,
peace and conflict issues.
Michael Smith is honorary professor in European Politics at the University
of Warwick and Emeritus Professor of European Politics at
Loughborough University. He has published extensively on EU
external policies and EU diplomacy. Recent books include
International Relations and the European Union (3rd edition, Oxford
University Press 2017, edited with Christopher Hill and Sophie
Vanhoonacker) and The Diplomatic System of the European Union:
evolution, change and challenges (Routledge 2016, edited with Stephan
Keukeleire and Sophie Vanhoonacker). He is currently working on EU
diplomacy towards its key “strategic partners (edited volume to be
published in April 2021, co-edited with Laura Ferreira Pereira) and on
a second edition of The European Union and the United States (first
edition 2008, Palgrave Macmillan, co-authored with Steven McGuire).
Nathalie Tocci is Director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali, honorary
professor at the University of Tübingen, and Special Adviser to EU
HRVP Federica Mogherini, on behalf of whom she wrote the European
Global Strategy and is now working on its implementation, notably in the
field of security and defence. Previously, she held research positions at
the Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, the Transatlantic
Academy, Washington, and the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced
Studies, Florence. Her research interests include European foreign
xviii Contributors
policy, conflict resolution, the Middle East and the Mediterranean. Her
major publications include Framing the EU's Global Strategy, Springer-
Palgrave Macmillan, 2017; The EU, Promoting Regional Integration, and
Conflict Resolution, Springer-Palgrave Macmillan, 2017 (co-editor);
Turkey and the European Union, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015 (co-author);
Multilateralism in the 21st Century, Routledge, 2013 (co-editor), Turkey’s
European Future: Behind the Scenes of America’s Influence on EU-Turkey
Relations, New York University Press, 2011 and The EU and Conflict
Resolution, Routledge, 2007. Nathalie is the 2008 winner of the Anna
Lindh award for the study of European Foreign Policy.
Sophie Vanhoonacker is a Jean Monnet professor and has a chair in
Administrative Governance at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,
Maastricht University. From 2016 to Sept. 2020, she was also dean of the
faculty. Prior to her appointment at the UM, she was a faculty member of
the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA), Maastricht
(NL) where she was part of the unit 'European Governance and Policy
Processes’ (1987–2001). Her research focuses on the role and influence of
the administrative level in EU decision making, in particular the emerging
EU level system of diplomacy and its processes of institutionalisation.
She is especially interested in the processes of “Brusselisation” or “the
steady enhancement of the Brussels-based decision-making bodies” in the
area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In her latest work, she
has primarily focused on the development of the European External
Action Service (EEAS). She is co-editor of the European Administrative
Governance book series at Palgrave Macmillan (wih Thomas
Christiansen) and of ‘The New European Union’ series of Oxford
University Press (with Dermot Hodson). Recent books include
International Relations and the European Union (3rd edition, Oxford
University Press 2017, edited with Christopher Hill and Michael Smith).
Preface

The publication of this book is a bitter-sweet moment for us. Naturally, we

are extremely pleased that this edited volume is being published at this time.
It addresses a set of issues that we consider critical to European security
policy in particular, because the global context in which it is formulated is
undergoing fundamental change. Bringing together analyses from leading
scholars in the field, this book will make a valuable contribution to the
current and future debates about the making of European security policy.
However, our satisfaction in seeing this volume published is tinged with
the sadness that another leading scholar, our friend and colleague Simon
Duke, could not be among the contributors. Simon suddenly passed away in
September 2018, and it was this untimely and tragic loss that brought us and
the other contributors to this volume together in mourning. Guided by our
collective reflection not only about Simon’s extraordinary personal qualities
but also the scholarly relevance of his work, we took the decision to publish
a book that would also serve to honour Simon’s scientific legacy—a legacy
that Antonio Missiroli so kindly and eloquently spelt out in the foreword to
this volume.
Yet, this book is not intended as a kind of Festschrift honouring Simon’s
work. Instead, our intention from the start had been to identify the research
agenda that was implicit in his research and writing, to invite fellow scholars
who were familiar with his work, possessing the necessary expertise to
develop these themes further, and thereby to bring together the scholarship
that will help to carry forward the research agenda.
We are indebted to those leading authors who worked with Simon in one
way or the other in the past and who readily accepted our invitation to
contribute to the book on this basis. It has been their willingness to write
chapters at short notice, that made this publication possible. Indeed,
everyone was not only ready to contribute their chapter within a tight
schedule, but also willing to respond to the comments and requests from
editors, referees and the publisher, and we are immensely grateful for the
understanding, cooperation and loyalty of all contributors. The close
connection of their work to that of Simon is also evident in the many
references to his prior publications. The result, we believe, is an edited
xx Preface
volume that is not only a testament to the central place that Simon Duke
holds among the scholars in this field, but also advances our understanding
of the changing nature of European security at the outset of the 2020s.
This book project is based on the crucial support that we received from
many quarters. First and foremost, this includes Dorina Claessens, a former
colleague and friend of Simon’s at the European Institute of Public
Administration (EIPA), who was an essential member of the editorial
team. Her support in organising an authors’ workshop and subsequently
assisting the book publication was instrumental in getting this project off the
ground. The workshop, held at Maastricht University’s Brussels Campus in
March 2019, was made possible through financial support received from
CERiM, the Centre for European Research in Maastricht at Maastricht
University, from Maastricht Working on Europe (MWoE), and from the
Journal of European Integration (JEI).
We also owe many thanks to Sven Biscop and Richard Whitman, the
series editors of “Routledge Studies in European Security and Strategy”,
and to Andrew Humphrys and Bethany Lund Yates at Routledge—whose
support, encouragement and professional guidance was crucial in the
process of bringing this publication project to a successful conclusion.
Furthermore, we also acknowledge with gratitude the research assistance
and editorial support provided by Gäelle Devillaire from EIPA, and by
Giulia Gallinella and Isabel Hernandez Pepe from Luiss University.
It is our sincere hope that in publishing this volume we provide readers
with valuable new insights and open new avenues for research in the field of
European security policy. If we have succeeded in this objective, we are also
pleased to have marked the scholarly legacy of Simon Duke, to whose
memory we dedicate this volume.
The editors
Maastricht, Rome and Brussels
Foreword
Antonio Missiroli

I first met Simon Duke shortly before he started his tenure at the EIPA (The
European Institute for Public Administration). At the time, I was a research
fellow at the WEU Institute for Security Studies, when the EU – following
the Franco-British St. Malo Declaration – was taking its first steps towards
building “an autonomous capacity to manage international crises”. I felt
almost like being “present at the creation” and it is difficult today to convey
the sense of anticipation and almost incredulity that pervaded those
(officials, experts or commentators) who were involved in it. Simon had
just returned from the US and brought with him a more detached approach,
based on a sound assessment of the constraints, challenges and reservations
the new policy was bound to face.
Ever since, I like to believe that our approaches have converged
significantly. For Simon, working at EIPA and training EU officials
surely increased his understanding of the motivations and drivers of both
CFSP and ESDP/CSDP, while offering him a platform to raise informed
questions as to their internal consistency and external impact. On one
occasion, I was called in at short notice by EIPA to replace Simon—it was
during the first serious warnings of what proved to be his precarious
health—and I ended up using all his slides with great ease and satisfaction.
On the other hand, my many years of work within the EU institutions and,
more recently, NATO have helped me develop a much more sober and
balanced view of the potential and limits of EU efforts in this field—as well
as of the structural difficulties affecting EU–NATO relations. I am
convinced that today Simon’s point of view and mine would coincide on
many if not all issues related to more current interactions.
It is with deep admiration that I have always read Simon’s academic
work—for the accuracy, completeness and lucidity with which he handled
often complex and intricate policy and institutional developments. His
publications were invaluable sources for any student (or indeed practitioner)
willing to delve into European and transatlantic security and defence. They
were always up to date, clearly framed and scrupulously drafted. After
rereading most of them, I am still struck by the balance with which each new
step (or misstep) was presented, analysed and evaluated. It was probably
xxii Foreword
only in what can be seen now as his ‘valedictory’ essay – published by
Survival after his death—that Simon decided to articulate in full his criticism
of the many assumptions on which recent EU policy statements were based.
While the jury is still out, I nevertheless find it hard—at least from an
intellectual perspective—to disagree with him.
In fact, having had the opportunity to work on both sides of the fence in
that field, I can honestly say that a number of EU officials tend to share that
criticism too—in private at least—including a certain annoyance for a
rhetoric that often trumps reality, feeds complacency and soon becomes
conventional wisdom. Yet it should not be forgotten that EU policy
statements and declarations are somewhat unique in that they entail a
strong aspirational component—they are meant to give a sense of direction,
not just to capture a specific situation—and sometimes even an inspirational
one. Progress on policy would probably be more difficult without that, but
of course, raising oversized expectations can also be risky and can easily
backfire. All this has probably more to do with culture than language; still, it
shapes narratives and perceptions that, in turn, have practical consequences.
On a more personal note, in this respect, I may add (and feel that Simon
would have concurred) that some unnecessary tensions in EU–NATO
relations stem from, respectively, a certain disregard by EU officials of the
role that NATO continues to play, and a certain ignorance by NATO
officials of the actual range and scope of EU policies—and this at a time
when each organisation is tentatively treading into the other’s traditional
territory.
Simon’s criticism was indeed often directed against the policy vocabulary
in use, and rightly so: the recurrent coupling of “security and defence”, as
though one was almost interchangeable with the other; the unqualified use
of “defence” itself (with a capital D), when the reference was rather to an
expansive understanding of the so-called “Petersberg tasks” (non-art.5
missions and operations); the mechanic combination of “Union” with
European defence (as in EDU); and of course, the unqualified emphasis
on “strategic autonomy”—or, one is tempted to add, the recent use of
“hybrid” in relation to almost every hostile non-military activity.
Even beyond the motivational intent of most of these terms (which, once
again, should not be underestimated), it is also important to note that such
language is often the result of cumbersome and protracted intergovernmental/
interservice negotiations rather than rigorous academic scrutiny. It is equally
important to realise that the only scrutiny applied to these terms is mostly of a
legal nature, and frequently aimed at leaving some wiggle room for
interpretation in light of possible new developments. Moreover, it is relevant
to recognise that what sometimes starts as “constructive ambiguity” tends to
take on a life of its own and to become more obstructive than constructive over
time (as sticking to agreed language is the preferred default option). Finally,
one should keep in mind that reality itself, at times, interferes and makes things
even fuzzier. For example, quintessential mutual assistance clauses, mainly
 Foreword xxiii
designed for deterrence and territorial defence purposes (NATO’s art.5 and the
EU’s art.42.7), have been instead invoked for “homeland” security purposes.
The policy developments that Simon devoted his passion and acumen
throughout his professional life are now coming to another critical juncture.
Twenty years on, European defence ambitions are now being put to a series
of stress tests—in terms of resources, governance, effectiveness and overall
credibility. This applies not only to the EU but also to NATO as well as
their members. Brexit represents a stress multiplier in its own right, for both
the UK and all its partners and allies—and Simon was well aware of its
potential impact on Europe’s security and defence.
Today, it would indeed be exciting to hear and read his commentaries on
current events, such as the set-up of the new European Commission and its
“geopolitical” ambitions, the strategic shock and reality check of COVID-19
and its potential implications as well as the current state of transatlantic
relations and the future of NATO. But his voice is no longer there—and it is
already sorely missed.
1 Introduction
Global challenges and institutional
dynamics in the making of European
security policy
Thomas Christiansen and Roberta N. Haar

The changing global context for European security policy

When Federica Mogherini, the then European Union (EU) High Representative
for Foreign and Security Policy, unveiled a new EU Global Strategy (EUGS) in
June 2016, it demonstrated the significant transformation that global politics had
undergone since the previous EU security strategy had been adopted in 2003.
Confronted with an arc of instability along its southern and eastern borders,
riven by a series of internal crises and, beyond Europe, faced with fractures in the
institutions of global governance, the emphasis in the EUGS was on the im-
portance of resilience, on strategic autonomy and a pragmatic promotion of both
values and interests.
Four years on, the global context for European security policy has
changed even more, and largely for the worse in terms of the EU’s foreign
policy objectives. Prime among these changes is the further deterioration of
global governance regimes, chiefly because of the attacks on these by the
Trump administration. Starting right after his inauguration in January 2017,
President Donald J. Trump acted on his election promise to put “America
First” by removing the United States from international agreements, com-
mitments and institutions. The list is long and well known, including both
regional and global arrangements. An “America First” policy spelt the end
of US participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement to
combat climate change, UNESCO, the WHO, disarmament treaties with
Russia and the Iran nuclear deal – to name just the more prominent ex-
amples. There were also threats to leave the World Trade Organization
(WTO), which was in any case hobbled by the US failure to appoint judges
to its appellate body, thus causing the WTO dispute settle mechanism to
stop functioning.
Occurring against the background of other global powers having already
developed a growing attitude of violating agreements and ignoring interna-
tional law more generally—as Russia has done in Ukraine and China in Hong
Kong and the South China Sea—this American assault further weakened the
established norms and institutions of global governance. It also helped to dis-
credit the notion that “the West” is the champion of a rules-based international
2 Thomas Christiansen and Roberta N. Haar
system. It is an ironic set of circumstances considering that it had been the
United States that drove the establishment of the Bretton Woods institutions
and the so-called International Liberal Order in the aftermath of the Second
World War.
The current era is marked by a revival of great power politics, geoeco-
nomics and strategic rivalry. While the lasting consequences of Trump’s US
foreign policy are difficult to assess, the erosion of the International Liberal
Order has arguably made it more difficult to contain security threats, both
traditional, such as nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran, and non-
traditional, most prominently climate change and global pandemics. It also
further complicates the resolutions of conflicts and indeed threatens to es-
calate proxy wars and disputes, such as those in the Eastern Mediterranean,
Libya and the Horn of Africa.
The trajectory of these developments is of deep concern to the EU, where
foreign policy is based on support for international norms, global govern-
ance and ‘effective multilateralism’. The shift in US foreign policy towards
“America First” (meaning in many cases America alone) and its scepticism
towards, if not outright withdrawal from, multilateral institutions meant
that the EU (as well as Japan and South Korea) were left to conduct their
foreign and security policy more autonomously. This not only limited the
influence the EU and individual European states had on the global stage; it
also raised questions about the continued presence of “the West” as a force
in global politics. Trump’s description of the EU as an “enemy” in terms of
trade relations and the imposition of punitive tariffs by the US on a range of
European exports on the grounds of “national security” further demon-
strated fissures in the transatlantic alliance.
With regard to European security more narrowly, one of the more serious
developments has been Trump’s scepticism towards the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), his attacks on European partners for their
alleged free-riding on US security commitments and his announcement of
withdrawing US troops from Germany. Question marks about the con-
tinued relevance (if not existence) of NATO have been exacerbated by the
criticism of others (with French President Emmanuel Macron’s statement
that NATO was “brain-dead” among the most prominent) and deep-seated
conflicts among its members. With regard to the latter, the 2020 con-
frontations between Turkish naval vessels on the one side, and Greek and
French on the other, drive home the impression that a NATO challenged by
internal conflicts is losing credibility in its ability to confront external
threats.
The erosion of the International Liberal Order, the fissures in the trans-
atlantic alliance and the question marks over the future of NATO constitute
serious challenges to European security. These developments not only un-
dermine long-standing principles of European foreign policy, such as the
support for multilateralism and the promotion of the rule of law, but also
threaten to remove the foundations on which European states and the EU as
 Introduction 3
a whole have conducted their foreign and security policy in the post-1945
era. The 2016 EUGS indicated a shift in response to these developments but
did not, and could not anticipate the seriousness of the challenge.
The publication of the EUGS in June 2016 also coincided with the British
vote to leave the EU (a departure of one of the largest member states and its
most potent military power). Brexit has implications for the EU’s interna-
tional reputation, its weight in global politics and its capacity to mobilise
military assets in support of its security policy. While the damage done by
Brexit will affect the UK more, as has Simon Duke argued, it will nonetheless
affect the EU, even if the precise nature of the Brexit effect will depend on the
kind of future relationship that Britain and the EU negotiate (Duke 2019).
These negotiations are still ongoing at the time of this book going to press, yet
the trend towards the more pessimistic end of the scenarios proposed by Duke
was evident in the context of a rapid deterioration in the relations between the
two sides. Indeed, the conclusion of only a minimal deal, or indeed the ab-
sence of any agreement at all between the EU and the UK was a distinct
possibility in the final weeks and months of the negotiations, given the express
willingness of Prime Minister Boris Johnson to legislate against the previously
signed and ratified Withdrawal Agreement.
At the beginning of the 2020s, the risk of a rupture that Brexit and its
aftermath might constitute for European security became apparent. More
broadly, the growing gulf between Trump’s America and Johnson’s Britain,
on the one hand, and the EU (which to some extent has become unified in
the context of Brexit negotiations) demonstrates how the long-standing
pillars of European security policy are falling away, and how the security
architecture for the continent needs to be re-thought and reimagined for this
new era.
The contributions to this volume address these challenges by investigating
specific aspects of the changing landscape of European security policy across
three broad areas: first, the nature of the EU as a security actor, involving
contributions that analyse the strategic outlook, its normative orientation
and its commitment to conflict resolution and crisis management; second,
the dynamics resulting from the presence of a common institutional frame-
work containing both supranational and intergovernmental logics; and,
third, the recalibration of transatlantic relations in the context of changing
global politics. The following section outlines how the various chapters
address these critical aspects of European security policy.

The making of European security in challenging times:

The research agenda

The nature of the EU as a security actor

The fundamental shifts at the global level not only pose serious tests for the
EU, but also heighten the importance of a comprehensive analysis of the EU
4 Thomas Christiansen and Roberta N. Haar
as a foreign, security and even defence actor. The EU has been articulating
the possibility that it provides the wherewithal for its own security and
defence since the end of the Cold War when events in Southern and Eastern
Europe brought issues of security and defence to the top of policy agendas.
The EU’s early momentum towards becoming a foreign, security and de-
fence actor was harnessed in the Common Security and Defence Policy in
1999 and the Berlin Plus agreement in 2002, which gave the EU recourse to
NATO assets.
Despite these measures, the EU’s ability to achieve genuine strategic au-
tonomy as an actor or to manage relevant crises remained questionable,
especially after the 2004 EU enlargement, when the Berlin Plus agreement
became unusable due to the political stalemate surrounding the division of
Cyprus. More recently, the EU’s handling of a series of emergencies points
to a global actor in trouble. Recent tests that the EU has not handled
particularly well include a sovereign debt crisis, a refugee crisis, a resurgence
in nationalism (which added to underlying pressures leading to Brexit) and
the backsliding of democratic practices by some EU member states.
In the light of the wider transformation of the international system and
the EU’s inability to handle these recent crises, the question what sort of
foreign, security and defence actor the EU aspires to remain crucial.
Moreover, one could legitimately ask a number of complementary ques-
tions, such as, whether the EU is actually a global actor or merely an im-
portant regional one. And, beyond this, what is the character of the EU as
an international actor?
The first section of this volume focuses on these issues, with Nathalie
Tocci addressing the questions whether the EU is an actor with a strategic
nature and the wherewithal to act on a global security strategy. Further than
security, could the EU become a proper defence actor? For example, rather
ambitiously, the Council of the European Union launched PESCO
(Permanent Structured Cooperation on security and defence) in December
2017. PESCO is a series of cooperation projects to develop defence cap-
abilities. Goals for the 17 PESCO projects are impressive, with then EU
High Representative Mogherini (2017) stating that the possibilities to make
European defence more efficient with higher levels of output “are immense”.
In a reality check, Simon Duke (2018) pointed out that the EU still has
several impediments to becoming a defence actor. For instance, since
PESCO takes an “opt-in” approach exactly how “common” will the per-
manent framework be? Might PESCO discover the same free rider, burden-
sharing conundrum that NATO currently experiences? Additionally, how
will the sovereignty-linked mindset of the members be overcome? The reality
of 27 different armies points to hardwired attitudes that defence is the core
of what it means to be a nation-state. This obstacle must be set alongside the
equally thwarting viewpoint by some member states, like Austria, Finland,
Ireland, Malta and Sweden, that taking part in defence cooperation goes
against their ideals of being neutral and non-aligned. Add to this that any
 Introduction 5
truly autonomous defence must include a credible nuclear deterrent under
an EU command, a perhaps insurmountable factor that France’s force de
frappe looks unable to provide.
Rather than pursue actorness in the areas of security and defence, perhaps
the EU will continue more profitably with a foreign policy that stresses its
soft power. Mai’a K. Davis Cross explores in her chapter the EU’s con-
tinued emphasis on its normative nature, with the power to wield cultural
diplomacy that emphasises its attractiveness as a world leader. Davis Cross
asks the question whether the EU’s cultural diplomacy strategy is effective in
helping to counter current threats, such as cyber propaganda that is at-
tacking democratic societies in the world. Davis Cross further asks what role
could the EU play going forward given the current weaknesses of the liberal
world order, as discussed above.
The threats that Davis Cross identifies are certainly evident in the EU’s
regional context, especially in its eastern neighbourhood, where the EU’s
aspirations to be a global actor, as well as a normative power, collide with
Russia’s vision of itself and its own models of political governance. Gergana
Noutcheva argues that this rivalry over the future of the neighbourhood
between Russia and the EU has come to be the defining feature of their
relationship but also the key to understanding the domestic struggle for
good governance in the countries of the EU’s eastern neighbourhood.
More globally, the EU’s normative goals and character may still prompt it
to develop itself further as a conflict manager that acts in cooperation with
other global actors. Development of the EU as a conflict manager came with
the first civilian missions and military operations that deployed in 2003 in
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Bosnia and
Herzegovina (BiH). Currently, the EU has a European Union Force in
Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUFOR), also known as Operation Althea (from
2004 to present), which took over from NATO’s operation IFOR
(Implementation) and SFOR (Stabilization). It also has a European Union
Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) (from 2008 to June 2020), which
provides the civilian and rule of law dimension to complement NATO’s
Kosovo Force (KFOR). These successes allowed the EU to fulfil civilian
crisis management tasks that NATO did not.
However, Andrew Sherriff argues that despite the EU’s significant fi-
nancial and energy investment in conflict prevention and peacebuilding, its
mixed methods have resulted in mixed results. Sherriff’s chapter explores
some of the predicaments associated with the EU’s multidimensional
methods to conflict prevention and peacebuilding and their less than
satisfying outcomes.

Institutional dynamics in the making of European security policy

One key factor in the making of European security policy, already high-
lighted in the earlier discussion, is the presence of a remarkably dense and
6 Thomas Christiansen and Roberta N. Haar
complex set of institutions devoted to regional security. Three aspects here
deserve particular attention and are being addressed in the respective
chapters in this part of the book: first, the tensions between intergovern-
mental and supranational dynamics within the EU’s foreign and security
policymaking machinery; second, the co-existence of the EU and NATO as
providers of security on the European continent, cooperating in various
ways but also distinguished by fundamentally different institutional logics,
decision-making modes and understandings of security policy; and, third,
the manner in which European security policy has tended to involve both
traditional and non-traditional approaches to security.
The evolving cooperation between the EU and NATO is the focus of two
chapters, namely the ones authored by Hanna Ojanen and by Raphael
Bossong and Mark Rhinard, respectively. Both contributions demonstrate
the extent to which cooperation between these institutions has increased in
the post-Cold War era and discuss some of the effects of this development.
Ojanen, in her chapter, shows how the growing interaction between the EU
and NATO has helped to make both similar to one another. In the process
of regular dialogue, cooperation at the institutional level and joint action
each adapted with the result that a degree of approximation emerged along
with their increasingly entrenched collaboration.
At the same time, such cooperation between these different kinds of or-
ganisations emphasised their distinctive characteristics. Ojanen highlights
the supranational elements, which have become more prominent in the
context of the EU, especially as the European Commission increasingly
becomes a player in foreign, defence and security policy, whereas NATO
staunchly relies on an intergovernmental logic in its decision-making pro-
cesses. A distinction is, if anything, bound to become starker as the pressure
to introduce elements of the (supranational) Community method, such as
majority voting and Commission initiative, increase in the future.
Bossong and Rhinard, in their contribution, focus on the substantive
changes occurring in both NATO and EU security policy. Their chapter fo-
cuses upon the manner in which European security policy crossed the tradi-
tional divide between internal and external security as well as the impact of an
emerging “nexus” of internal and external security policymaking. Having
charted the mechanisms through which the boundary between internal and
external security has become blurred in recent years, the chapter then dis-
cusses the normative implications of this trend for the EU in particular.
Bossong and Rhinard argue that the emergence of an integrated security
executive in Europe raises far-reaching questions about the operation of
constitutional norms in the EU, about conceptions of accountability and
indeed about the very raison d’étre of the European integration project.
The EU’s tendency to cross traditional boundaries in the development of
a distinctive approach to security policy is also discussed by Steven
Blockmans and Loes Debuysere in their contribution on the EU’s
“integrated approach to conflict”, with a focus on its conceptual history and
 Introduction 7
institutional expressions. The chapter identifies the main elements of this
“integrated approach” espoused by the EU, which brings together civil and
military operations in the service of both conflict prevention and post-
conflict stabilisation efforts. Having traced the development of this concept
and the process of its institutionalisation in the EU, Blockmans and
Debuysere ask critical questions about its actual practice in addressing ex-
ternal conflicts.
Taken together, the contributions to this part of the book demonstrate the
significance of institutional arrangements in explaining the shape of
European security policy and the dynamics at work in its evolution. It is a
rapidly evolving landscape. Moreover, much effort has gone into increasing
the EU’s capacity to address external conflicts in an integrated manner, to
develop deeper cooperation with NATO and to overcome the boundary
between internal and external security in addressing new threats. However,
the contributions also show the complexity of these developments and the
manner in which they raise both normative and practical questions about
the making of European security policy.

The recalibration of transatlantic relations

As discussed at the beginning of this introduction, the changing character
of the international system not only affects the disposition of the EU as
a global actor but also affects Europe’s most important strategic
relationship—the partnership it has with the United States. The third section
of this volume addresses the recalibration of the transatlantic relationship in
light of the changing international system and the reorientation of US for-
eign policy under President Trump. It begins with Emil Kirchner’s assess-
ment of how a rising China affects transatlantic relations. Kirchner wonders
whether the EU as a global actor, with its distinctive configuration, will be
able to avoid being caught in a competition between China and the United
States. The truth is, whether it wants to or not, the EU must deal with
the strategic reordering brought about by the US–Sino rivalry. Kirchner’s
three case studies (trade wars, the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and
Chinese maritime activities in the East and South China Sea) contemplate
how this strategic reordering affects the EU and how, in turn, the EU might
in the future most advantageously engage both China and the United States.
For example, the United States was gratified when the EU enunciated a shift
in its China position in March 2019 when a Joint Communication labelled
China a “systemic rival” (European Commission 2019).
However, when it comes to forging bonds over a common outlook on
Asia, Europe must overcome the suspicions that its commercial interests
trump its strategic ones (Small 2019). In this calculation, the global effects of
covid-19 may hasten a shift in European mindsets. Countries in Europe that
were less willing to be openly critical of China, in part for fear of retribution,
have begun to express concern over Beijing’s narrative of its handling of the
8 Thomas Christiansen and Roberta N. Haar
covid-19 crisis and have even begun to reduce their dependence on Chinese
manufacturing and supply chains. In an age when a virus can stall econo-
mies, overwhelm excellent health systems and kill tens of thousands of their
citizens, leaders in Western Europe have come to realise that they cannot
depend on an autocratic China.
The third section then investigates whether Europe’s partnership with
America will survive another predicament similar to the one brought on by
the Trump administration’s belligerent rhetoric and tone. Are we living in a
time of ruinous tension, one in which the Transatlantic bond will not sur-
vive? Erik Jones’ chapter investigates this question and whether any one US
president can have a deep and lasting impact on the alliance. Building on
scholarship from Simon Duke, Jones argues that presidential elections are
unlikely to make any difference in the transatlantic relationship and that
replacing Donald Trump in 2020 will not eliminate the tensions between the
United States and its allies across the Atlantic.
This is because of post-war fundamental shifts in the way the two sides
of the Atlantic cooperate that date back to before the end of the Cold War.
Transcending these differences would require policymakers on both sides of
the Atlantic to focus on strategic priorities and on constructing a common
vision. To date, both endeavours have eluded leaders, with Jones arguing
that short-term distractions and the misappropriation of tactics to replace
strategy ultimately results in Europeans and Americans growing too far
apart to cooperate effectively.
Along the same lines, Michael Smith argues in his contribution that the
US–EU partnership in political power and diplomacy may not survive the
future, Trump with or without. The tensions that the former Trump ad-
ministration generated challenged the EU’s assumptions about multi-
lateralism and, accordingly, the EU’s core practices of diplomacy. Smith’s
chapter focuses on the ways in which EU diplomacy responds to these tests
and their implications for the EU in transatlantic relations.
Might the fundamentals in the changing international system combined
with unforeseen crises push the EU towards genuine autonomy in its future
security policy? This is a possibility that Sven Biscop contemplates in his
chapter on the EU’s quest for strategic autonomy. However, in any
“re-balancing the alliance scenario” the question whether the EU actually
has the means to develop into a global power in its own right is always
relevant. If the EU were to take over from the United States in leading or
replacing NATO, it is not clear what such leadership would look like and
what it would prioritise. The fact is that over much of the 70-year history of
the alliance, security enhancement and procurement were not European
priorities with the result that in recent decades European militaries have
struggled to adapt and modernise.
Leading would also require an ability to project power and coax others to
follow collectively, competences that in the short-term Europe does not have
nor is it clear that it can develop such capabilities in the long-term.
 Introduction 9
Projecting power needs substantial investment in armed forces to the tune of
hundreds of billions (Defending Europe 2019). As Biscop points out in his
analysis on the capacities that Europe must acquire for strategic autonomy,
the EU will not be a strategic actor until it has the wherewithal to deter a
would-be attacker.
Thus, in the short term and even in the medium to long term, future
collective security and defence will remain under NATO’s remit and under
American leadership, however reluctant it might be as a leader. With this
fact in mind, European states must find meaningful ways to renew their
partnership with the United States and develop a joint-leadership capacity.
There are a number of approaches that Europeans might utilise (Haar 2020).
First, they might build on US Congressional and public opinion that
demonstrate full support for NATO (Chicago Council Survey of American
Public Opinion). Second, Europeans could build on the view of the world
that they share with the United States. In this line, EU members could ca-
pitalise on EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s goal of
creating a “Geopolitical Commission” (Bassot 2020) that recognises the
strategic reordering brought about by the US–Sino rivalry and Europe’s
potential to be a “force multiplier”, especially in contesting Chinese eco-
nomic practices like intellectual property theft (Small 2019).
While these measures are important, the key to a strong future partner-
ship is to reinvigorate trust between the United States and the European
nation states. This trust can be rebuilt by reforming the post-war institutions
that underpin their security and defence. Whatever Trumpism or other fu-
ture variants of transactionalism might portend, it is still a fact that the
United States and European nation states share common values and a
common purpose, both of which remain a bedrock for future collaboration.

Conclusion
European security has become a vast and complex field, both in practice and in
its scholarly study. The contributions to this volume demonstrate the breadth
of this area of policymaking. We highlighted developments and challenges
with regard to three specific aspects of European security policy: the changing
nature of the EU as a security actor, the institutional dynamics that both
facilitate and limit these changes, and the recalibration of transatlantic rela-
tions. All three themes have huge implications for European security.
Taken together, the chapters of this volume constitute a comprehensive
analysis of European security and its contemporary challenges, which fa-
cilitates not only a better understanding of the evolution and trajectory of
European security policy but also critically engages with the normative as-
pects of these developments. The conclusion to this volume brings together
the findings from the individual chapters, identifies key trends and weighs
the implications of these developments for the making of European security
in the future.
10 Thomas Christiansen and Roberta N. Haar
References
Barry, Ben, Douglas Barrie, Lucie Béraud-Sudreau, Henry Boyd, Nick Childs, and
Bastian Giegerich. 2019. “Defending Europe: Scenario-Based Capability
Requirements for NATO’s European Member.” https://www.iiss.org/blogs/
research-paper/2019/05/defending-europe (April 30, 2020).
Bassot, Étienne. 2020. The von der Leyen Commission’s Priorities for 2019–2024.
Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service.
Dina Smeltz, Dina. 2019. “Rejecting Retreat, Americans Support US Engagement in
Global Affairs.” Chicago Council Survey of American Public Opinion. https://www.
thechicagocouncil.org/publication/lcc/rejecting-retreat (April 30, 2020).
Duke Simon W. 2018. “The Enigmatic Role of Defence in the EU: From EDC to
EDU?” European Foreign Affairs Review 23(1): 63–80.
Duke, Simon W. 2019. Will Brexit Damage Our Security and Defence? London:
Springer.
European Commission. 2019. “EU-China – A Strategic Outlook.” Strasbourg,
European Commission and HR/VP contribution to the European Council. Brussels.
Haar, Roberta N. 2020. “Policy Brief: Why America Should Continue to Lead
NATO.” Atlantisch Perspectief 44(2): 31–37.
Mogherini, Federica. 2017. “Speech by High Representative/Vice-President Federica
Mogherini at the European Parliament plenary session on European
Foreign Security and Defence Policy.” https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/
headquarters-Homepage/37256/speech-high-representativevice-president-federica-
mogherini-european-parliament-plenary_be (April 30, 2020).
Small, Andrew. 2019. “Transatlantic Cooperation on Asia and the Trump
Administration.” http://www.gmfus.org/publications/transatlantic-cooperation-asia-
and-trump-administration (April 30, 2020).
Introduction
Barry, Ben , Douglas Barrie , Lucie Béraud-Sudreau , Henry Boyd , Nick Childs , and Bastian
Giegerich . 2019. Defending Europe: Scenario-Based Capability Requirements for NATO’s
European Member. https://www.iiss.org/blogs/research-paper/2019/05/defending-europe (April
30, 2020).
Bassot, Étienne . 2020. The von der Leyen Commission’s Priorities for 2019–2024. Brussels:
European Parliamentary Research Service.
Dina Smeltz, Dina . 2019. Rejecting Retreat, Americans Support US Engagement in Global
Affairs. Chicago Council Survey of American Public Opinion.
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/lcc/rejecting-retreat (April 30, 2020).
Duke Simon W. 2018. The Enigmatic Role of Defence in the EU: From EDC to EDU? European
Foreign Affairs Review 23(1): 63–80.
Duke, Simon W. 2019. Will Brexit Damage Our Security and Defence? London: Springer.
European Commission . 2019. EU-China – A Strategic Outlook. Strasbourg, European
Commission and HR/VP contribution to the European Council. Brussels.
Haar, Roberta N . 2020. Policy Brief: Why America Should Continue to Lead NATO. Atlantisch
Perspectief 44(2): 31–37.
Mogherini, Federica . 2017. Speech by High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini
at the European Parliament plenary session on European Foreign Security and Defence Policy.
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-Homepage/37256/speech-high-
representativevice-president-federica-mogherini-european-parliament-plenary_be (April 30,
2020).
Small, Andrew . 2019. Transatlantic Cooperation on Asia and the Trump Administration.
http://www.gmfus.org/publications/transatlantic-cooperation-asia-and-trump-administration (April
30, 2020).

Towards European cooperative autonomy

Acharya, Amitav . 2017. After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of the Multiplex World. Ethics and
International Affairs, Carnegie Council,
https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2017/multiplex-world-order/
Acharya, Amitav . 2018. The End of American Hegemony. Cambridge: Polity.
Allison, Graham . 2017. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?
New York: Mariner Books.
Colombo, Silvia , Andrea Dessì , and Vassilis Ntsousas . 2018. The EU, Resilience and the
MENA Region. Rome/Brussels: IAI and FEPS.
European Commission . 2017a. Reflection Paper on Harnessing Globalisation (COM/2017/240).
Brussels: European Commission, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2017:0240:FIN
European Commission . 2017b. Reflection Paper on the Future of European Defence. Brussels:
European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/reflection-
paper-defence_en.pdf
European Commission and European External Action Service . 2016. Joint Communication to
the European Parliament and the Council Towards an EU Strategy for International Cultural
Relations. JOIN/2016/029 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=JOIN%3A2016%3A29%3AFIN
EU HR/VP . 2015. The European Union in a Changing Global Environment: A More Connected,
Contested and Complex World. June,
http://www.eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/docs/strategic_review/eustrategic
review_executive_summary_en.pdf
EU HRVP . 2019. The EU’s Global Strategy: Three Years On. Looking Forward,
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_global_strategy_2019.pdf
EU HR/VP . 2016. Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. A Global Strategy for
the EU’s Foreign and Security Policy. June,
https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/sites/globalstrategy/files/eugs_review_web.pdf
Grevi, Giovanni . 2009. “The Interpolar World: A New Scenario.” EUISS Occasional PaperNo.
79. Paris: EUISS.
Haas, Richard N. 2008. The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow US Dominance. Foreign
Affairs 87(3): 44–56.
Herd, Graeme . 2010. Great Powers and Strategic Stability in the Twenty-First Century:
Competing Visions of World Order. London: Routledge.
Juncker, Jean-Claude . 2017. The State of the Union 2017: Catching the Wind in our Sails.
European Commission Press Release, September 13, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-
17–3164_en.htm
Keleman, Daniel , Anand Menon , & Jonathan Slapin (2014). “The European Union: Wider and
Deeper.” Journal of European Public Policy, 21(5): 643–646.
Khanna, Parag . 2016. Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization. New York:
Random House.
Kupchan, Charles A. , ed. 1998. Atlantic Security: Contending Visions. New York/Washington:
Council on Foreign Relations Press/Brookings Institution Press.
Pew . 2016. Europeans Face the World Divided. June, Pew Survey.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2016/06/PewResearchCenter
EPWReportFINALJune132016.pdf
Tocci, Nathalie . 2019. Navigating Complexity: The EU’s Rationale in the 21stCentury. IAI
Commentaries. https://www.iai.it/it/pubblicazioni/navigating-complexity-eus-rationale-21st-
century
Zakaria, Fareed . 2008. The Post-American World. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Normative power in the eastern neighbourhood

Ademmer, E. , L. Delcour , and K. Wolczuk . 2016. Beyond Geopolitics: Exploring the Impact of
the EU and Russia in the ‘Contested Neighborhood’. Eurasian Geography and Economics
57(1): 1–18. doi: 10.1080/15387216.2016.1183221.
Allison, R. 2017. “Russia and the Post-2014 International Legal Order: Revisionism and
Realpolitik.” International Affairs 93(3): 519–543.
Averre, D. 2009. Competing Rationalities: Russia, the EU and the ‘Shared Neighbourhood’.
Europe-Asia Studies 61(10): 1689–1713.
Bertelsmann Stiftung . Transformation Index, Democracy Status. https://atlas.bti-project.org.
Börzel, T. A. , and B. Lebanidze . 2017. ‘The Transformative Power of Europe’ Beyond
Enlargement: The EU’s Performance in Promoting Democracy in Its Neighbourhood. East
European Politics 33(1): 17–35.
Börzel, T. A. , and F. Schimmelfennig . 2017. Coming Together or Drifting Apart? The EU’s
Political Integration Capacity in Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 24(2):
278–296.
Casier, T. 2013. The EU-Russia Strategic Partnership: Challenging the Normative Argument.
Europe-Asia Studies 65(7): 1377–1395.
Casier, T. 2016. From Logic of Competition to Conflict: Understanding the Dynamics of
EU–Russia Relations. Contemporary Politics 22(3): 376–394.
Casier, T. 2019. Russia and the Diffusion of Political Norms: The Perfect Rival? Paper
presented at the 13th Pan-European Conference on International Relation, EISA, Sofia
University “Sveti Kliment Ohridski,” Sofia.
Curanović, A. 2012. The Religious Factor in Russia’s Foreign Policy: Keeping God on Our Side.
New York: Routledge.
Damro, C. 2012. Market Power Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 19(5): 682–699.
Dandashly, A. 2015. The EU Response to Regime Change in the Wake of the Arab Revolt:
Differential Implementation. Journal of European Integration 37(1): 37–56.
Dandashly, A. , and G. Noutcheva . 2019. Unintended Consequences of EU’s Democracy
Support in the European Neighbourhood. The International Spectator 54(1): 105–120.
Dannreuther, R. 2015. Russia and the Arab Spring: Supporting the Counter-Revolution. Journal
of European Integration 37(1): 77–94.
Delcour, L. , and K. Wolczuk . 2015. Spoiler or Facilitator of Democratization? Russia's Role in
Georgia and Ukraine. Democratization 22(3): 459–478.
Diez, T. 2013. Normative Power as Hegemony. Cooperation and Conflict 48(2): 194–210.
Dragneva, R. , and K. Wolczuk . 2017. The Eurasian Economic Union Deals, Rules and the
Exercise of Power. Research Paper, London: Chatham House.
Dreyer, I. , and N. Popescu . 2014. The Eurasian Customs Union: The Economics and the
Politics. Brief No. 11, Paris: EUISS.
Duke, S. 2017. Europe as a Stronger Global Actor: Challenges and Strategic Responses.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Duke, S. , and C. Gebhard . 2017. The EU and NATO’s Dilemmas with Russia and the
Prospects for Deconfliction. European Security 26(3): 379–397.
Emerson, M. 2001. The Elephant and the Bear: The European Union, Russia and their Near
Abroads. Brussels: CEPS. https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/24.pdf
Emerson, M. , and D. Cenusa , eds. 2018. Deepening EU-Moldova Relations: What, Why and
How? 2nd edition. Brussels: CEPS. https://3dcftas.eu/publications/deepening-eu-moldovan-
relations-what-why-and-how-2
Emerson, M. , and T. Kovziridze , eds. 2018. Deepening EU-Georgia Relations: What, Why and
How? 2nd edition. Brussels: CEPS. https://3dcftas.eu/publications/deepening-eu-ge-relations-
what-why-and-how-2
Emerson, M. , and M. Movchan , eds. 2018. Deepening EU-Ukraine Relations: What, Why and
How? 2nd edition. Brussels: CEPS. https://3dcftas.eu/publications/deepening-eu-ukrainian-
relations-what-why-and-how-2
Emerson, M. , and G. Noutcheva . 2018. Political and Economic Governance in the Balkans
Versus Eastern Europe. In The Struggle for Good Governance in Eastern Europe, ed. Michael
Emerson , Denis Cenusa , Tamara Kovziridze and Veronika Movchan , 244–277. London:
Rowman & Littlefield International.
EU Neighbours East . 2017. Annual Survey Report: Regional Overview. Brussels. June 2017.
https://www.euneighbours.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2017-
10/EUNEIGHBOURSeast_AnnualSurvey2017report_EaP_OVERVIEW_0.pdf
EU Neighbours East . 2018. Annual Survey Report: Regional Overview. Brussels. June 2018.
https://www.euneighbours.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2018-
07/EU%20NEIGHBOURS%20east_AnnualSurvey2018report_EaPOverview.pdf
EU Neighbours East . 2019. Annual Survey Report: Regional Overview. Brussels. May 2019.
https://www.euneighbours.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2019-
07/EUNEIGHBOURS%20east_AS2019report_EaP%20OVERVIEW_0.pd
European Commission . 2003. Wider Europe — Neighbourhood: A New Framework for
Relations with Our Eastern and Southern Neighbours (No. COM(2003)104final). Brussels, 11
March. https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/enp/pdf/pdf/com03_104_en.pdf
European Commission . 2004. European Neighbourhood Policy: Strategy Paper (No.
COM(2004)373). Brussels, 12 May. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-
enlargement/sites/near/files/2004_communication_from_the_commission_european_-
_neighbourhood_policy_-_strategy_paper.pdf.
European Commission . 2007. A Strong European Neighbourhood Policy (No. COM(2007)774).
Brussels, 5 December. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0774:FIN:EN:PDF.
European Commission . 2011a. A Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with the
Southern Mediterranean (No. COM(2011)200). Brussels, 8 March.
https://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/policy/com_2011_200_en.pdf.
European Commission . 2011b. A New and Ambitious European Neighbourhood Policy.
Brussels, May 25. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11–643_en.htm
European Commission . 2019. Facts and Figures about EU-Azerbaijan Relations. Brussels.
https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/eap_factsheet_azerbaijan.pdf
European Commission . 2020. Countries and Regions: Belarus. Brussels.
https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/belarus/
European Parliament Think Tank . 2017. Eurasian Economic Union: The Rocky Road to
Integration. Briefing, Brussels, April.
Giragosian, R. 2019. Paradox of Power: Russia, Armenia, and Europe after the Velvet
Revolution. Policy Paper, London: ECFR, August.
Joseph, J. , and A. Juncos . 2019. Resilience as an Emergent European Project? The EU's
Place in the Resilience Turn. Journal of Common Market Studies 57(5): 995–1011. doi:
10.1111/jcms.12881.
Juncos, A. E. 2017. Resilience as the New EU Foreign Policy Paradigm: A Pragmatist Turn?
European Security 26(1): 1–18. doi: 10.1080/09662839.2016.1247809.
Kurki, M. 2010. Democracy and Conceptual Contestability: Reconsidering Conceptions of
Democracy in Democracy Promotion. International Studies Review 12(3): 362–386.
Langbein, J. , and K. Wolczuk . 2012. Convergence without Membership? The Impact of the
European Union in the Neighbourhood: Evidence from Ukraine. Journal of European Public
Policy 19(6): 863–881.
Lipman, M. 2016. How Putin Silences Dissent. Foreign Affairs 95(3): 38–46.
Magen, A. , T. Risse , and M. McFaul , eds. 2009. Promoting Democracy and the Rule of Law:
American and European Strategies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Makarychev, A. 2018. Normative and Civilisational Regionalisms: The EU, Russia and Their
Common Neighbourhoods. The International Spectator 53(3): 1–19.
Manners, I. 2002. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common
Market Studies 40(2): 235–258.
Mead, W. 2014. The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist Powers. Foreign
Affairs 93(3): 69–79.
Meunier, S. , and M. A. Vachudova . 2018. Liberal Intergovernmentalism, Illiberalism and the
Potential Superpower of the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 56(7):
1631–1647.
Neumann, I. 2016. Russia’s Europe, 1991-2016: Inferiority to Superiority. International Affairs
92(6): 1381–1399.
Nitoiu, C. , and M. Sus . 2019. Introduction: The Rise of Geopolitics in the EU’s Approach in Its
Eastern Neighbourhood. Geopolitics 24(1): 1–19. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2019.1544396.
Noutcheva, G. 2015. Institutional Governance of European Neighbourhood Policy in the Wake
of the Arab Spring. Journal of European Integration 37(1): 19–36. doi:
10.1080/07036337.2014.975987.
Noutcheva, G. 2018. Whose Legitimacy? The EU and Russia in Contest for the Eastern
Neighbourhood. Democratization 25(2): 312–330.
OSCE . 2016. Russian Federation State Duma Elections (Election Observation Mission Final
Report). Warsaw: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.
http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/russia/290861?download=true
Pavlovsky, G. 2016. Russian Politics Under Putin. Foreign Affairs, May/June.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2016-04-18/russian-politics-under-putin
Petrova, T. 2015. International, National or Local? Explaining the Substance of Democracy
Promotion: The case of Eastern European Democracy Promotion. Cambridge Review of
International Affairs 28(1): 136–155.
Popova, M. 2017. Putin-Style ‘Rule of Law’ and the Prospects for Change. Dædalus, the
Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences 146(2): 64–75.
Raik, K. 2019. The Ukraine Crisis as a Conflict over Europe’s Political, Economic and Security
Order. Geopolitics 24(1): 51–70. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2017.1414046.
Romanova, T. 2018. Russia’s Neo-revisionist Challenge to the Liberal International Order. The
International Spectator 53(1): 76–91.
Sakwa, R. 2015. Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. London/New York: I.B.Tauris.
Sakwa, R. 2017. Russia Against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sasse, G. 2008. The European Neighbourhood Policy: Conditionality Revisited for the EU’s
Eastern Neighbours. Europe-Asia Studies 60(2): 295–316.
Schimmelfennig, F. , and H. Scholtz . 2008. EU Democracy Promotion in the European
Neighbourhood: Political Conditionality, Economic Development and Transnational Exchange.
European Union Politics 9(2): 187–215.
Schimmelfennig, F. , and U. Sedelmeier , eds. 2005. The Europeanization of Central and
Eastern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Sjursen, H. 2006. The EU as a ‘Normative’ Power: How Can This Be? Journal of European
Public Policy 13(2): 235–251.
Tocci, N. 2020. Resilience and the Role of the European Union in the World. Contemporary
Security Policy 41(2): 176–194. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2019.1640342.
Tolstrup, J. 2009. Studying a Negative External Actor: Russia’s Management of Stability and
Instability in the ‘Near Abroad’. Democratization 16(5): 922–944.
Tsygankov, A. 2015. Vladimir Putin’s Last Stand: The Sources of Russia’s Ukraine Policy. Post-
Soviet Affairs 31(4): 279–303.
Von Soest, C. 2015. Democracy Prevention: The International Collaboration of Authoritarian
Regimes. European Journal of Political Research 54(4): 623–638.
Weber, K. , M. E. Smith , and M. Baun , eds. 2007. Governing Europe’s Neighbourhood:
Partners or Periphery? Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Wetzel, A. , and J. Orbie . 2011. Promoting Embedded Democracy? Researching the
Substance of EU Democracy Promotion. European Foreign Affairs Review 16(5): 565–588.
Wetzel, A. , and J. Orbie , eds. 2015. The Substance of EU Democracy Promotion: Concepts
and Cases. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Whitman, R. , ed. 2011. Normative Power Europe: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Whitman, R. , and S. Wolff , eds. 2012. The European Neighbourhood Policy in Perspective:
Context, Implementation and Impact. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Youngs, R. 2009. Democracy Promotion as External Governance? Journal of European Public
Policy 16(6): 895–915.
Youngs, R. 2017. Europe’s Eastern Crisis: The Geopolitics of Asymmetry. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Youngs, R. 2019. The New Patchwork Politics of Wider Europe. Brussels: CEPS, 28 October.
https://3dcftas.eu/publications/the-new-patchwork-politics-of-wider-europe

The challenges ahead for European cultural diplomacy

1
Acharya, Amitav . 2017. After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order. Ethics
& International Affairs 31(3): 271–285.
Algan, Yann , Sergei Guriev , Elias Papaioannouo , Evgenia Passari . 2017. The European
Trust Crisis and the Rise of Populism. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2017(2):
309–400. Project MUSE. doi:10.1353/eca.2017.0015.
Ang, Ien , Yudhishthir Raj Isar , and Phillip Mar . 2015. Cultural Diplomacy: Beyond the National
Interest? International Journal of Cultural Policy 21(4): 365–381.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2015.1042474
Bird, Michael , and Blaz Zgaga . 2019. US Billionaires Funding EU Culture War. EUObserver,
August 22. https://euobserver.com/institutional/145686
Brown, John . 2008. Public Diplomacy and Propaganda: Their Differences. American Diplomacy
(September). Gale Academic OneFile. http://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2008/09/public-
diplomacy-propaganda-their-differences/
Cadwalladr, Carole . 2019. Robert Mercer: The Big Data Billionaire Waging War on Mainstream
Media. The Guardian, February 26. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-
mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage
Cianetti, Licia , James Dawson , and Seán Hanley . 2018. Rethinking ‘Democratic Backsliding’
in Central and Eastern Europe: Looking Beyond Hungary and Poland. East European Politics
34(3): 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2018.1491401
Cross, Mai’a K. Davis . 2011. “Europe, A Smart Power?” International Politics 48(6): 691–706.
https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2011.28
Cross, Mai’a K. Davis . 2013. Conceptualizing European Public Diplomacy. In European Public
Diplomacy: Soft Power at Work, eds. Mai’a K. Davis Cross and Jan Melissen . Palgrave
Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy. Houndmills: Palgrave.
Cross, Mai’a K. Davis . 2017. The Politics of Crisis in Europe. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Cross, Mai’a K. Davis . 2018. Strategic Flexibility and Willingness to Engage. Cultures of We?
Europe and the Search for a New Narrative, EU National Institutes of Culture Yearbook,
184–189.
Cross, Mai’a K. Davis . 2019. EU Institutions and Peace. In The Causes of Peace: What We
Know Now, ed. Asle Toje , 235–258. Oslo: Nobel Symposium Proceedings.
Cross, Mai’a K. Davis , and Teresa La Porte . 2016. The European Union and Image Resilience
During Times of Crisis: The Role of Public Diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 2(3):
257–282. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-12341365
Cultural Diplomacy Platform, a consortium composed of the British Council , Centre for Fine
Arts/BOZAR, EUNIC-Global, European Cultural Foundation, the Institut-Français and led by
Goethe-Institut, https://www.cultureinexternalrelations.eu/category/platform-activities/events/
de Vries, Gijs . 2019. “Cultural Freedom in European Foreign Policy.” Institut für
Auslandsbeziehungen (IFA) Edition Culture and Foreign Policy, 27, April 2019.
https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/62190/ssoar-2019-vries-
Cultural_Freedom_in_European_Foreign.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-2019-
vries-Cultural_Freedom_in_European_Foreign.pdf
Duke, Simon . 2013. The European External Action Service and Public Diplomacy. In European
Public Diplomacy: Soft Power at Work, ed. Mai’a K. Davis Cross and Jan Melissen . Houndmills:
Palgrave.
Duke, Simon . 2017. Europe as a Stronger Global Actor: Challenges and Strategic Responses.
London: Palgrave.
European Commission . 2007. A European Agenda for Culture in a Globalizing World,
COM(2007) 242 Final, May 10. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0242
European Commission . 2016. Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the
Council: Towards an EU Strategy for International Cultural Relations, JOIN(2016) 29 final, June
8.
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_communication_on_international_cultural_relations.p
df
European Commission . 2018. A New Agenda for European Culture, COM(2018) 267 final, 2.
Brussels, May 22. https://ec.europa.eu/culture/document/new-european-agenda-culture-
swd2018-267-final
Grassegger, Hannes , and Mikael Krogerus . 2017. The Data that Turned the World Upside
Down. Motherboard Tech by Vice, January 28. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mg9vvn/how-
our-likes-helped-trump-win
Gricius, Gabriella . 2019. How Russia’s Disinformation Campaigns are Succeeding in Europe.
Global Security Review, May 11. https://globalsecurityreview.com/russia-disinformation-
campaigns-succeeding-europe/
Inglehart, Ronald F. , and Pippa Norris . 2016. Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism:
Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash. John F. Kennedy School of Government Faculty
Research Working Paper Series.
Kagan, Robert . 2017. The Twilight of the Liberal World Order. Brookings Institutions Report,
January 24. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-twilight-of-the-liberal-world-order/
Kennedy, John F. 1962. The Address at Rice University on the Nation’s Space Effort. Presented
at Rice University Stadium, Houston, Texas.
Keohane, Robert O. , and Joseph S. Nye . 1973. Power and Interdependence. Survival 15(4):
158–165.
Lieberman, Matthew D. 2013. Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. Oxford University
Press.
MacKay, Bradley R. , and Veselina Stoyanova . 2017. Scenario Planning with a Sociological
Eye: Augmenting the Intuitive Logics Approach to Understanding the Future of Scotland and the
UK. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 124(November): 88–100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.026
Mathew, Sarah . 2015. Evolution of Human Cooperation. In International Encyclopedia of the
Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, ed. James D. Wright , Vol. 11, 259–266. Oxford:
Elsevier.
Mietzner, Dana , and Guido Reger . 2005. Advantages and Disadvantages of Scenario
Approaches for Strategic Foresight. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and
Planning 1(2): 220–239. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1736110
Nossel, Suzanne . 2004. Smart Power: Reclaiming Liberal Internationalism. Foreign Affairs,
March/April. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2004-03-01/smart-power
Noujaim, Jehane , and Karim Amer . 2019. The Great Hack. Netflix, Movie.
Nye, Joseph S. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public
Affairs.
Nye, Joseph S. 2008. Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science 616(1): 94–109.
Nye, Joseph S. 2009. Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power. Foreign Affairs, July/August.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2009-07-01/get-smart
Pinker, Steven . 2011. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined. New York:
Penguin Books.
Ramirez, Rafael , Malobi Mukherjee , Simona Vezzoli , Arnoldo Matus Kramer . 2015.
Scenarios as a Scholarly Methodology to Produce ‘Interesting Research’. Futures 71(August):
70–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.06.006
Rankin, Jennifer . 2017. EU Takes Hungary to ECJ over Crackdown ‘Aimed at George Soros.
The Guardian, December 7. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/eu-hungary-court-
crackdown-george-soros
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on
the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free
movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection
Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, 4 May 2016, L119, 1–88.
Rifkin, Jeremy . 2009. The Empathic Civilization: The Race to Global Consciousness in a World
in Crisis. New York: Tarcher/Penguin.
Simpson, Emile . 2016. This is How the Liberal World Order Ends. Foreign Policy, February 19.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/19/this-is-how-the-liberal-world-order-ends/
Sus, Monika , and Marcel Hadeed . 2019. Pivotal Shift in European Security? Introductory
Remarks. European Security 2030: The Results of the Dahrendorf Foresight Project. LSE
Ideas, September 2019. https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/Dahrendorf/FINAL-
LSE-DAHRENDORF-REPORT-Online.pdf
Walt, Stephen M. 2016. The Collapse of the Liberal World Order. Foreign Policy, June 26.
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/collapse-liberal-world-order

Development cooperation or security policy? The EU’s support for

conflict prevention and peacebuilding in a changing global environment
ADE . 2011. Thematic Evaluation of European Commission Support to Conflict Prevention and
Peace-building 2001-2010, Vol. 1–3. Evaluation for the European Commission, October.
http://www.oecd.org/derec/49446993.pdf.
Andersson, R. , and D. Keen . 2019. “Partners in Crime? The Impacts of Europe’s Outsourced
Migration Controls on Peace, Stability and Rights.” Saferworld, London, July.
https://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/publications/1217-partners-in-crime-the-impacts-of-
europeas-outsourced-migration-controls-on-peace-stability-and-rights.
Ball, N. , E. Weller , V. Hauck , S. Soux , F. Faria , A. Sherriff , M. Deneckere , Veron, P. et al.
2020. Evaluation carried out on behalf of the European Commission, Vol. 1 of External
Evaluation of EU’s Support to Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding 2013-2018. Brussels:
Particip.
Bossuyt, J. , E. Caputo , and J. Schwarz . 2017. Coherence Report: Insights from the External
Evaluation of the External Financing Instruments, FWC COM 2015
EuropeAid/137211/DH/SER/MultiSpecific Contract No°2015/373954. Report was commissioned
by the Evaluation Unit of the Directorate-General for International Co-operation and
Development. Brussels: European Commission, July. https://ecdpm.org/wp-
content/uploads/Coherence-Report-EFI-EC-July-2017.pdf.
Council of the European Union . 2001. Draft EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent
Conflicts,, 9537/1/01 REV 1, Brussels, 7 June 2001
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9537-2001-REV-1/en/pdf.
Council of the European Union . 2018. Council Conclusions on the Integrated Approach to
External Conflicts and Crises, 3591st meeting, 5413/18, Brussels, January 22.
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5413-2018-INIT/en/pdf.
Debuysere, L. , and S. Blockmans . 2019. Europe’s Coherence Gap in External Crisis and
Conflict Management: The EU’s Integrated Approach between Political Rhetoric and
Institutional Practice. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://www.bertelsmann-
stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/EZ_EU_Report_Weiss_ENG_4
_2019.pdf.
Duke, S. 2013. The European External Action Service and the Quest for an Effective Public
Diplomacy. IPSI Analysis No. 216, [Milan]. December,
https://www.ispionline.it/sites/default/files/pubblicazioni/analysis_216_2013.pdf.
Duke, S. 2017. Europe as a Stronger Global Actor: Challenges and Strategic Responses.
Palgrave Macmillan UK, London.
Duke, S. 2018. High Stakes: Brexit, Security, and Defence. ECDPM Great Insights Magazine
7(3) Summer 2018. https://ecdpm.org/wp-
content/uploads/Great_Insights_Vol_7_issue_3_Beyond_Brexit-1.pdf.
Duke, S. , and A. Courtier . 2009. EU Peacebuilding: Concepts, Players and Instruments.
Centre for the Law of EU External Relations (CLEER Working Papers), The Hague, March
2009. https://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/11172009_41811clee09-3comb.pdf.
European Commission . 2001. Communication from the Commission on Conflict Prevention.
B11.04.2001. COM(2001)211 Final. Brussels: European Commission.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f5b018e7-21c6-4bf1-854c-
031483282266/language-en.
European Commission . 2015. European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, European
Commission Fact Sheet, MEMO/15/6056, 12 November.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_15_6056.
European Commission . 2018. A New, Modern Multiannual Financial Framework for a European
Union that Delivers Efficiently on Its Priorities Post-2020. COM(2018) 98 Final. Brussels:
European Commission, 14 February 2018. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0098&from=en.
European Council . 2001. Presidency Conclusions, Göteborg European Council, Göteborg, 15
and 16 June 2001, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/20983/00200-r1en1.pdf.
European Parliament, Council, Commission . 2006. Joint Statement by the Council and the
Representatives of the Governments of the Member States Meeting within the Council, the
European Parliament and the Commission on European Union Development Policy: ‘The
European Consensus’ The European Consensus on Development, 2006/C 46/01, Official
Journal of the European Union, C 46/2, 24th of February. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ%3AC%3A2006%3A046%3A0001%3A0019%
3AEN%3APDF.
European Union. 2014. Regulation (EU) No 230/2014 of the European Parliament and Council
of 11 March 2014 establishing an instrument contributing to stability and peace, 15.3. 2014,
Official Journal of the European Union, L 77/1, Brussels. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0230.
European Union . 2018. The New European Consensus on Development, our World, our
Dignity, Our Future. Joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments
of the member states meeting within the Council, the European Parliament, and the European
Commission, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2841/741554.
Gourlay, C. 2009. EU–UN Cooperation in Peacebuilding Partners in Practice? UNIDIR United
Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, UNIDIR/2009/7, Geneva.
https://unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/eu-un-cooperation-in-peacebuilding-partners-in-practice-
350.pdf.
HRVP . 2016. “Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. A Global Strategy for the
European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy.” [Brussels], June,
https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf.
Juncker, J. C. 2018. State of the Union 2018: The Hour of European Sovereignty. European
Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-
speech_en_0.pdf.
Kantar . 2019. Standard Eurobarometer 92 First Results, Public opinion in the European Union,
Survey co-ordinated by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication,
November, [Brussels].
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instrumen
ts/STANDARD/surveyKy/2255.
Sherriff, A. , ed. 2019. Investing in Europe’s Global Role: The Must-have Guide for the
Negotiations of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027. Maastricht: ECDPM.
https://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/Europe-global-role_multiannual-financial-framework-
2021-2027-must-have-guide-negotiations-ECDPM-April-2019.pdf.
Sherriff, A. , P. Veron , M. Deneckere , and V. Hauck . 2018. Supporting Peacebuilding in Times
of Change: Synthesis Report of 4 Case Studies. Maastricht: ECDPM, October.
https://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/ECDPM-2018-Supporting-Peacebuilding-Times-Change-
Synthesis-Report.pdf.
Stevis-Gridneff, M. 2020. How Forced Labor in Eritrea Is Linked to EU-Funded Projects. New
York Times, January 8. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/world/europe/conscription-eritrea-
eu.html.
Strand, H. , S. A. Rustad , H. Urdal , and H. M. Nygård . 2019. Trends in Armed Conflict:
1946–2018. PRIO Policy Brief, Conflict Trends, 3. Oslo: Peace Research Institute of Oslo
(PRIO). https://www.prio.org/Publications/Publication/?x=11349.
Teevan, C. , and A. Sherriff . 2019. Mission Possible? The Geopolitical Commission and the
Partnership with Africa. ECDPM Briefing Note 113, Maastricht, October. https://ecdpm.org/wp-
content/uploads/Mission-Possible-Geopolitical-Commission-Partnership-Africa-ECDPM-
Briefing-Note-113.pdf.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) . 2020. Global Trends in Forced
Displacement 2019. Statistics and Demographics Section UNHCR Global Data Service,
Copenhagen, June 18. https://www.unhcr.org/5ee200e37/.
von der Leyen, U. 2019. “A Union that Strives for More: My Agenda for Europe by Candidate for
President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen.” Political Guidelines for the Next
European Commission 2019–2024. Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-
political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf.
von der Leyen, U. 2020. Keynote Speech at the World Economic Forum. Presented at Davos,
European Commission Speech, SPEECH/20/102, 22 January 2020.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_20_102.

The EU’s engagement with international organisations

Allen, David , and Michael Smith . 1990. Western Europe’s Presence in the Contemporary
International Arena. Review of International Studies 16(1): 19–37.
Bailes, Alyson J. K. , and Graham Messervy-Whiting . 2011. Death of an Institution: The End for
Western European Union, a Future for European Defence. Egmont Papers, Brussels: Royal
Institute for International Relations, May 26, 2011. http://www.egmontinstitute.be/death-of-an-
institution-the-end-for-western-european-union-a-future-for-european-defence-2/
Barnier, Michel . 2019. In Defence of Europe. Project Syndicate, May 21, 2019.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/michel-barnier
Biermann, Rafael . 2011. Inter-Organizational Relations: An Emerging Research Programme. In
The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors, ed. Bob Reinalds , 173–184. Farnham,
Surrey and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Biermann, Rafael . 2017. Legitimizing Inter-Organizational Relations. In Palgrave Handbook of
Inter-Organizational Relations in World Politics, ed. Rafael Biermann and Joachim A. Koops ,
337–364. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brosig, Malte . 2010. Governance Between International Institutions: Analysing Interaction
Modes Between the EU, the Council of Europe and the OSCE. In Cooperation or Conflict?
Problematizing Organizational Overlap in Europe, ed. David J. Galbreath and Carmen Gebhard
, 29–58. Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Cornish, Paul , and Geoffrey Edwards . 2001. Beyond the EU/NATO Dichotomy: The
Beginnings of a European Strategic Culture. International Affairs 77(3): 587–603.
Costa, Oriol . 2017. Assessing Influence Between International Organizations. In Palgrave
Handbook of Inter-organizational Relations in World Politics, ed. Rafael Biermann and Joachim
A. Koops , 389–405. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Costa, Oriol , and Knud Erik Jørgensen , eds. 2012. The Influence of International Institutions
on the EU: When Multilateralism Hits Brussels. Houndmills, Basingstoke and New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
DiMaggio, Paul J. , and Walter W. Powell . 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review
48(2): 147–160.
Duke, Simon . 2018. The Enigmatic Role of Defence in the EU: From EDC to EDU? European
Foreign Affairs Review 23(1): 63–80.
Duke, Simon , and Hanna Ojanen . 2006. Bridging Internal and External Security: Lessons from
the European Security and Defence Policy. European Integration 28(5): 477–494.
Duke, Simon , and Sophie Vanhoonacker . 2016. EU-NATO Relations: Top-Down Strategic
Paralysis, Bottom-Up Cooperation. InThe EU, Strategy and Security Policy. Regional and
Strategic Challenges, ed. Laura Chappell , Jocelyn Mawdsley and Petar Petrov , 153–168.
London: Routledge.
European Council, European Commission, and Secretary General of NATO . 2018. Joint
Declaration on EU-NATO Cooperation by President of the European Council Donald Tusk,
President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, and Secretary General of NATO
Jens Stoltenberg. European Council Press Release, July 10.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/07/10/eu-nato-joint-declaration/
Fiott, Daniel . 2018. Strategic Autonomy: Towards “European Sovereignty” in Defence? EU
Institute for Security Studies Brief, Paris, December.
https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/Brief%2012__Strategic%20Autonomy.p
df
Gebhard, Carmen , and Simon J. Smith . 2015. The Two Faces of EU-NATO Cooperation:
Counter-Piracy Operations off the Somali Coast. Cooperation and Conflict 50(1): 107–127.
Gegout, Catherine . 2010. European Foreign and Security Policy: States, Power, Institutions,
and American Hegemony. Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press.
Gehring, Thomas , Sebastian Oberthür , and Marc Mühleck . 2013. European Union Actorness
in International Institutions: Why the EU is Recognized as an Actor in Some International
Institutions, but Not in Others. Journal of Common Market Studies 51(5): 849–865.
Graeger, Nina . 2016. European Security as Practice: EU–NATO Communities of Practice in the
Making? European Security 25(4): 478–501.
Graeger, Nina , and Kristin Haugevik . 2011. The EU’s Performance with and within NATO:
Assessing Objectives, Outcomes, and Organisational Practices. Journal of European
Integration 33(6): 743–757.
Graeger, Nina , and Kristin Haugevik . 2013. EU-NATO Relations. In Routledge Handbook on
the European Union and International Institutions: Performance, Policy, Power, ed. Knud Erik
Jørgensen and Katie Verlin Laatikainen , 259–270. Abingdon: Routledge.
Grevi, Giovanni . 2019. Strategic Autonomy for European Choices: The Key to Europe’s
Shaping Power. Discussion Paper, Brussels: European Policy Centre. July 19.
https://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_9300_strategic_autonomy_for_european_choices2
.pdf?doc_id=2188
Heisbourg, François . 2000. Europe’s Strategic Ambitions: The Limits of Ambiguity. Survival
42(2): 5–15.
Howorth, Jolyon . 2018. Strategic Autonomy and EU-NATO Cooperation: Threat or Opportunity
for Transatlantic Relations? Journal of European Integration 40(5): 523–537.
Howorth, Jolyon . 2019. Strategic Autonomy: Why It’s Not About Europe Going it Alone.
Research Paper, Brussels: Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies. August.
https://martenscentre.eu/publications/strategic-autonomy-why-its-not-about-europe-going-it-
alone
Järvenpää, Pauli , Claudia Major , and Sven Sakkov . 2019. European Strategic Autonomy:
Operationalizing a Buzzword. Report, Tallinn: International Centre for Defence and Security
(ICDS). October 2019.
Juncos, Ana E. , and Karolina Pomorska . 2006. Playing the Brussels Game: Strategic
Socialisation in the CFSP Council Working Groups. European Integration Online Papers (EIOP)
10(11).
Jupille, Joseph , and James A. Caporaso . 1998. States, Agencies and Rules: The European
Union in Global Environmental Politics. In The European Union in the World Community, ed.
Carolyn Rhodes , 213–230. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Kolb, Marina . 2013. The European Union and the Council of Europe. Houndmills, Basingstoke
and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Koops, Joachim A. 2012. NATO’s Influence on the Evolution of the European Union as a
Security Actor. In The Influence of International Institutions on the European Union: When
Multilateralism Hits Brussels, ed. Oriol Costa and Knud Erik Jorgensen , 155–185. Houndmills,
Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lindstrom, Gustav , and Thierry Tardy , eds. 2019. The EU and NATO: The Essential Partners.
Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS).
Lippert, Barbara , Nicolai von Ondarza , and Volker Perthes , eds. 2019. European Strategic
Autonomy: Actors, Issues, Conflicts of Interests. SWP Research Paper 2019/RP 04, Berlin:
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. March. https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2019RP04/
Manners, Ian . 2002. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common
Market Studies 40(2): 235–258.
Marrone, Alessandro . 2012. Defence Spending in Europe in Light of the Economic Crisis. IAI
Working Papers 12. Rome: Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI).
Mizruchi, Mark S. , and Mina Yoo . 2002. Interorganizational Power and Dependence. In The
Blackwell Companion to Organizations, ed. Joel A. C. Baum , 599–620. Oxford and Malden:
Blackwell Business.
NATO . 2002. EU-NATO Declaration on ESDP, 16 December 2002.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_19544.htm
NATO . 2019. Fourth Progress Report on the Implementation of the Common Set of Proposals
Endorsed by NATO and EU Councils on 6 December 2016 and 5 December 2017.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_06/190617-4th-Joint-progress-
report-EU-NATO-eng.pdf
Ojanen, Hanna . 2006. The EU and NATO: Two Competing Models for a Common Defence
Policy. Journal of Common Market Studies 44(1): 57–75.
Ojanen, Hanna . 2018. The EU’s Power in Inter-Organisational Relations. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Paterson, William E. 2011. The Reluctant Hegemon: Germany Moves Centre Stage in the
European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 49, 57–75.
Posen, Barry . 2006. ESDP: Response to Unipolarity? Security Studies 15(2): 149–186.
Rhinard, Mark , and Gunnar Sjöstedt . 2019. The EU as a Global Actor: A New
Conceptualisation Four Decades after “Actorness”. UI Paper, Stockholm: Swedish Institute of
International Affairs. June. https://www.ui.se/globalassets/ui.se-eng/publications/ui-
publications/2019/ui-paper-no.-6-2019.pdf
Schumacher, Barbara . 2012. The Influence of the Council of Europe on the European Union:
Resource Exchange and Domain Restriction as Venues for Inter-Institutional Influence. In The
Influence of International Institutions on the EU: When Multilateralism Hits Brussels, ed. Oriol
Costa and Knud Erik Jørgensen , 186–206. Houndmills, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Sjöstedt, Gunnar . 1977. The External Role of the European Community. Westmead UK: Saxon
House.
Sjursen, Helene . 2018. The Legitimacy of European Union Foreign Policy. Global Affairs
4(2–3): 253–264.
Smith, Michael E. 2004. Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of
Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stocchetti, Marikki . 2013. Inside the European Consensus on Development and Trade:
Analysing the EU’s Normative Power and Policy Coherence for Development in Global
Governance. PhD dissertation. University of Helsinki. Helsinki: Unigrafia.
Strikwerda, Johanna . 2018. Unexpected Compliance? The Implementation of the Defence and
Security Procurement Directive. Journal of European Integration 40(7): 889–904.
Suchman, Mark C. 1995. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches.
Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610. Thousands Oaks and New Delhi: SAGE
Publications.
Van Ham, Peter . 2000. Europe’s Common Defence Policy: Implications for the Transatlantic
Relationship. Security Dialogue 31(2): 215–242.
Wong, Reuben , and Christopher Hill , eds. 2011. National and European Foreign Policies:
Towards Europeanization. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.

The internal and external security nexus in Europe

Bigo, D. 2014. The (In)securitization Practices of the Three Universes of EU Border Control:
Military/Navy – Border Guards/Police – Database Analysts. Security Dialogue 45(3): 209–225.
Boin, A. , Ekengren, M. , and Rhinard, M. 2006. Protecting the Union: Analyzing an Emerging
Policy Space. Journal of European Integration 28(5): 405–421.
Boin, A. , Ekengren, M. , and Rhinard, M. 2013. The European Union as Crisis Manager:
Problems and Prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bossong, R. , and Carrapiço, H. 2016. EU Borders and Shifting Internal Security: Technology,
Externalization and Accountability. Berlin: Springer.
Bossong, R. , and Rhinard, M. 2013. The EU Internal Security Strategy: Towards a More
Coherent Approach to EU Security? Studia Diplomatica LXVI(2): 45–58.
Bossong, R. , and Rhinard, M. 2016. Theorizing Internal Security in the European Union, ed. R.
Bossong and M. Rhinard , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brattberg, E. , and Rhinard, M. 2012. The EU As a Global Counter-Terrorism Actor in the
Making. European Security 21(4): 557–577.
Brent, L. 2019. NATO’s Role in Cyberspace. NATO Review Magazine, February 12.
Bunyan, T. , and Buxton, N. 2017. Market Forces: The Development of the EU Security-
Industrial Complex. Amsterdam:Transnational Institute (TNI).
Castillejo, C. 2016. Discussion Paper 2016/22: The European Union Trust Fund for Africa: A
Glimpse of the Future for EU Development Cooperation. Bonn: German Development Institute.
Chrysoloras, N. 2019. EU Weighs Sanctions Against Cyber Crimes Amid China Concerns.
Bloomberg News, February 7.
Csernatoni, R. 2016. “Defending Europe: Dual-Use Technologies and Drone Development in
the European Union.” Royal Higher Institute for Defence Focus Paper 35, 1–66.
Commission . 2013. Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union: An Open, Safe and Secure
Cyberspace. Joint Communication from the European Commission and High Representative,
JOIN 2013: 1, February 7.
Commission . 2016a. Delivering on the European Agenda on Security to Fight Against
Terrorism and Pave the Way Towards an Effective and Genuine Security Union.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, European Council and
Council, COM (2016) 230 final, April 20.
Commission . 2016b. European Defence Action Plan. Communication from the Commission,
COM (2016) 950, November 30.
Commission . 2018. Security Union: A Union that Protects. Commission Info Sheet, June 29.
www.europa.eu.
Commission . 2019. EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey: List of Projects Committed/Decided,
Contracted, Disbursed, July 18. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-
enlargement/sites/near/files/facility_table.pdf
Council . 2018a. Outcome of Proceedings of the EU-US Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial
Meeting (Washington, 8–9 November 2018). Brussels: Council of the European Union,
12894/18, November 20.
Council . 2018b. CFSP Report - Our Priorities 2018. Brussels: Council of the European Union,
10766/18, July 9.
Council . 2019. Security and Defence in the Context of the EU Global Strategy. Council
Conclusions, 10047/19, June 17.
Csernatoni, R. 2018. Constructing the EU’s High-Tech Borders: FRONTEX and Dual-Use
Drones for Border Management. European Security 27(2): 175–200.
Duke, S. , and Ojanen, H. 2006. Bridging Internal and External Security: Lessons from the
European Security and Defence Policy. Journal of European Integration 28(5): 477–494.
European Defence Agency (EDA) . 2017. Annual Report 2017. Brussels: European Defence
Agency.
European External Action Service (EEAS) . 2015. Ukraine, Terrorism and Africa Dominate
Foreign Affairs Council. European External Action Service Press Release, February 10.
EEAS . 2016. Migration Partnership. European External Action Service Press Release, May 3.
EEAS . 2017. Options Paper for CSDP Support to the G5 Sahel Joint Force. Working Document
of the European External Action Service, EEAS (2017) 933, July 28.
EEAS . 2018. Strategic Review of EUNAVFOR Med Operation Sophia. Working Document of
the European External Action Service, EEAS (2010) 835, July 26.
Ekengren, M. 2006. From a European Security Community to a Secure European Community:
Tracing the New Security Identity of the European Union. In Globalization and Security
Challenges, ed. H. G. Brauch , et al. , New York: Springer Verlag.
Eriksson, J. , and Rhinard, M. 2009. The Internal-External Security Nexus: Notes on an
Emerging Research Agenda. Cooperation and Conflict 44(3): 243–267.
EU HR/VP . 2016. Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. A Global Strategy for
the EU’s Foreign and SecurityPolicy, June,
https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/sites/globalstrategy/files/eugs_review_web.pdf
European Council . 2003. “European Security Strategy - A secure Europe in a better world.”
Report Presented by the High Representative for the CFSP to the European Council, Brussels,
December 8. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/
European Council . 2008. Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy.
Providing Security in a Changing World. S407/08, December 11.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/
Fägersten, B. 2019. European Autonomy in a Changing World Order. In The European Union in
a Changing World Order, ed. B. Engelbrekt , N. Bremberg and A. Michalski , 23–46. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hynek, N. 2011. EU Crisis Management After the Lisbon Treaty: Civil–Military Coordination and
the Future of the EU OHQ. European Security 20(1): 81–102.
Ilves, L. K. , Evans, T. J. , Cilluffo, F. J. , and Nadeau, A. A. 2016. European Union and NATO
Global Cybersecurity Challenges. Prism 6(2): 126–142.
Juncos, A. E. 2017. Resilience as the New EU Foreign Policy Paradigm: A Pragmatist Turn?
European Security 26(1): 1–18.
Kappeler, V. E. , and Kraska, P. B. 2015. Normalising Police Militarisation, Living in Denial.
Policing and Society 25(3): 268–275.
Karakas, C. 2018. European Defence Fund: Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 [EU
Legislation in Progress]. European Parliamentary Research Service Blog, November 20.
Kaunert, C. 2010. European Internal Security: Towards Supranational Governance in the Area
of Freedom, Security and Justice. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Kouchner, B. 2008. Pour une défense européenne, par Bernard Kouchner. Le Monde, March
10. https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2008/03/10/po.
Lavenex, S. , and Wichmann, N. 2009. The External Governance of EU Internal Security.
Journal of European Integration 31(1): 83–102.
Lutterbeck, D. 2004. Between Police and Military: The New Security Agenda and the Rise of
Gendarmeries. Cooperation and Conflict 39(1): 45–68.
Mälksoo, M. 2018. Countering Hybrid Warfare As Ontological Security Management: the
Emerging Practices of the EU and NATO. European Security 27(3): 374–392.
Manners, I. 2002. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? JCMS: Journal of
Common Market Studies 40(2): 235–258.
Martins, B. O. , and Küsters, C. 2018. “Hidden Security: EU Public Research Funds and the
Development of European Drones.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 57(2): 278–297.
Moret, E. , and Pawlak, P. 2017. The EU Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox: Towards a Cyber
Sanctions Regime? EUISS Issue Brief No. 24, July.
Myrdal, S. , and Rhinard, M. 2010. The European Union’s Solidarity Clause: Empty Letter or
Effective Tool? UI Occasional Paper No. 2.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) . 2002. Prague Summit Communique. NATO Post-
Summit Press Release, November 21. www.nato.int
NATO . 2016. Warsaw Summit Communiqué. NATO Post-Summit Press Release, July 8–9.
NATO . 2018. NATO - Topic: Relations with the European Union. Press Release, July 18.
Nevers, R. de . 2007. “NATO’s International Security Role in the Terrorist Era.”International
Security 31(4): 34–66.
North Atlantic Council . 2014. Wales Summit Declaration. Post-Summit Communique,
September 5.
Parkes, R. 2019. Healthy Boundaries: Remedies for Europe’s Cross-Border Disorder. European
Union Institute for Security Studies​​, EU-ISS Chaillot Papers, 152: 1–23.
Pawlak, P. 2009. The External Dimension of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice:
Hijacker or Hostage of Cross-pillarization? Journal of European Integration 31(1): 25–44.
Riddervold, M. 2018. A Humanitarian Mission in Line with Human Rights? Assessing Sophia,
the EU’s Naval Response to the Migration Crisis. European Security 27(2): 158–174.
Sellier, E. 2018a. Small Steps Towards a Comprehensive Approach after Lisbon. New Journal
of European Criminal Law 9(1): 109–137.
Sellier, E. 2018b. The European External Action Service, Counterterrorism and the Imperative
of Coherence. The International Spectator 53(4): 129–151.
Statewatch . 2017. EU-Backed ‘G5 Sahel’ Security Mission Starts Operations as Europeans
Hope to Stem Migration Flows. Statewatch Blog Post [blog], November 3.
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2017/nov/fr-g5-sahe
Stern, M. , and Öjendal, J. 2010. Mapping the Security—Development Nexus: Conflict,
Complexity, Cacophony, Convergence? Security Dialogue 41(1): 5–29.
Trauner, F. 2011. The Internal-External Security Nexus: More Coherence under Lisbon? EUISS
Occasional Papers, March (89): 1–52.
Trauner, F. , and Ripoll Servent, A. 2015. Policy Change in the Area of Freedom, Security and
Justice: How EU Institutions Matter. London: Routledge.
Vorrath, J. , and Pietz, T. 2018. CSDP Compact: Reinventing EU Civilian Crisis Management?
SWP Berlin Point of View, December 19. https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/point-of-
view/2018/csdp-compact-reinventing-eu-civilian-crisis-management/
Vranken, B. 2018. European Defence Fund: the Militarisation of EU Science. EU Observer,
June 27.
Wobma, N. 2017. Laying Down the (Cyber) Law. NATO Communications and Information
Agency Papers, January.
Wolff, S. , Wichmann, N. , and Mounier, G. 2013. The External Dimension of Justice and Home
Affairs: A Different Security Agenda for the European Union?, ed. S. Wolff , N. Wichmann and
G. Mounier . London: Routledge.

Institutionalising the integrated approach to external conflict

Blockmans, Steven . 2018. The EU’s Modular Approach to Defence Integration: An Inclusive,
Ambitious and Legally Binding PESCO? Common Market Law Review 6(55): 1785–1826.
Blockmans, Steven , and Christophe Hillion , eds. 2013. EEAS 2.0: A Legal Commentary on
Council Decision 2010/427/EU Establishing the Organisation and Functioning of the European
External Action Service. Brussels: CEPS.
Blockmans, Steven , and Panos Koutrakos , eds. 2018. Research Handbook on the EU’s
Common Foreign and Security Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Blockmans, Steven , and Sophia Russack . 2015. The Commissioners’ Group on External
Action: Key Political Facilitator. CEPS Special Report No. 125. Brussels: CEPS, December 17.
Castillejo, Clare , Niels Keijzer , Oscar Chmiel , Mariella Di Ciommo , Juha Jokela , Erik
Lundsgaarde , Iliana Olivié , Aitor Perez , Sanne Thijssen , Julie Vaille , Zsuzsanna Vegh , and
Bernardo Venturi . 2018. Financing EU External Action: Understanding Member State Priorities.
European Think Tanks Group. https://ettg.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Financing-EU-
external-action.pdf.
Council of the European Union . 2003. A Secure Europe in a Better World: European Security
Strategy. Brussels: Council of the European Union, December 8.
Council of the European Union . 2007. Council Conclusions on Security and Development.
2831st External Relations Council Meeting. Brussels: Council of the European Union,
November 19–20.
Council of the European Union . 2014. Council Conclusions on the EU’s Comprehensive
Approach. Foreign Affairs Council Meeting. Brussels: Council of the European Union, May 12.
Council of the European Union . 2015. Taking Forward the EU’s Comprehensive Approach to
External Conflict and Crises, Action Plan 2015. Joint Staff Working Document. Brussels:
Council of the European Union, April 14.
Council of the European Union . 2016a. Taking Forward the EU’s Comprehensive Approach to
External Conflicts and Crises, Action Plan 2016/17. Joint Staff Working Document. Brussels:
Council of the European Union, July 19.
Council of the European Union . 2016b. Progress Report on the Implementation of the EU’s
Comprehensive Approach to External Conflicts and Crises, Action Plan 2015. Joint Staff
Working Document. Brussels: Council of the European Union, July 19.
Council of the European Union . 2017a. 2017–2018 Action Programme for the African Peace
Facility. Brussels: Council of the European Union, March 2.
Council of the European Union . 2017b. “EU-NATO Cooperation: Council Welcomes Progress
Made. Council Conclusions on Progress Report on the Implementation of the Common Set of
Proposals Endorsed by EU and NATO Ministers on 6 December 2016.” Council of the EU Press
Release, June 19.
Council of the European Union . 2018a. Council Conclusions on the Integrated Approach to
External Conflicts and Crises. Brussels: Council of the European Union, January 22.
Council of the European Union . 2018b. “Multilateralism: The Council Endorses the UN-EU
Strategic Partnership on Peace Operations and Crisis Management Priorities for 2019–2021.”
Council of the EU Press Release, September 18.
Debuysere, Loes , and Steven Blockmans . 2019. Crisis Responders: Comparing Policy
Approaches of the EU, UN, NATO and OSCE with Experiences in the Field. European Foreign
Affairs Review 3(24): 243–264.
Duke, Simon . 2008. The Future of EU–NATO Relations: A Case of Mutual Irrelevance through
Competition? Journal of European Integration 30(1): 27–43.
Duke, Simon . 2012. Diplomatic Training and the Challenges Facing the EEAS. The Hague
Journal of Diplomacy 7(1): 95–114.
Duke, Simon . 2015. Diplomatic Training in the European Union. In The European External
Action Service: European Diplomacy Post-Westphalia, ed. David Spence and Jozef Batora ,
403–416. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Duke, Simon . 2018. Capabilities and CSDP: Resourcing Political Will or Paper Armies? In
Research Handbook on the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, ed. Steven Blockmans
and Panos Koutrakos , 154–181. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Faleg, Giovanni . 2018. The EU: From Comprehensive to Integrated Approach. Global Affairs
4(2–3): 171–183.
EaP CSF (Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum) . 2018. EaP CSF Position Paper on NDICI.
Brussels: EaP CSF, September. http://eap-csf.eu/wp-content/uploads/EaP-CSF-position-paper-
on-NDICI_September-2018.pdf
EC . 2017a. Coherence Report: Insights from the External Evaluation of the External Financing
Instruments. Brussels: European Commission, July 2017.
EC . 2017b. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Mid-term
Review Report of the External Financing Instruments. Brussels: European Commission,
December 15.
EC . 2018. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
Establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument.
Brussels: European Commission, June 14.
EC and HRVP (European Commission and High Representative of the European Union for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) . 2013. Joint Communication to the European Parliament
and the Council: The EU’s Comprehensive Approach to External Conflicts and Crises. Brussels:
European Commission and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy, December 11.
EUGS . 2016. Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. A Global Strategy for the
European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. Brussels: EEAS, June 2016.
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eugs_review_web_0.pdf
EP, Council of the EU, and EC (European Parliament, Council of the EU, and European
Commission) . 2013. Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 Between the European
Parliament, the Council and the Commission on Budgetary Discipline, on Cooperation in
Budgetary Matters and on Sound Financial Management. Official Journal of the EU, C-373/1,
December 20, 2013.
EPRS (European Parliamentary Research Service) . 2018. EU External Financing Instruments
and the Post-2020 Architecture: European Implementation Assessment. Brussels: Publications
Office of the EU, February 2018.
Jones, Alexei , Emmanuel De Groof , and Joanna Kahiluoto . 2018. Governing a New Broad
Instrument for EU External Action: The Ins and Outs of the Institutional Power Struggle.
ECDPM Briefing Note No. 107. Maastricht: The European Centre for Development Policy
Management, December 2018.
Kammel, Arnold , and Benjamin Zyla . 2018. The Comprehensive Approach to EU Crisis
Management: Contexts, Lessons Identified, and Policy Implications. Journal of Regional
Security 13(1): 39–63.
Marquardt, Stephan . 2018. The Institutional Framework, Legal Instruments and Decision-
making Procedures. In Research Handbook on the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy,
ed. Steven Blockmans and Panos Koutrakos , 22–43. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Smith, Michael E. 2012. “Developing a ‘Comprehensive Approach’ to International Security:
Institutional Learning and the CSDP.” In Constructing a Policy-Making State? Policy Dynamics
in the EU, ed. Jeremy Richardson , 253–269. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stiftung, Bertelsmann , ed. 2019. Europe’s Coherence Gap in External Crisis and Conflict
Management: The EU’s Integrated Approach Between Political Rhetoric and Institutional
Practice. Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Tardy, Thierry . 2017. The EU: From Comprehensive Vision to Integrated Action. EUISS Brief
Issue No. 5. Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies.

The role of China in transatlantic relations

Beeson, M. 2018. “China’s Big Idea: Making Sense of the Belt and Road Initiative.” Economic
and Political Studies 6(3): 237–239.
Bersick, S. , Christou, G. , and Shen, Y. 2016. Cybersecurity and EU-China Relations. In
Security Relations between China and the European Union: From Convergence to
Cooperation?, E. Kirchner , T. Christiansen and H. Dorussen , 167–186. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316563243
Bond, I. 2018. China and Europe: Buying Hearts and Minds?, Centre for European Reform, 29
November. https://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/bulletin-article/2018/china-and-europe-
buying-hearts-and-minds (February 15, 2020).
Campbell, K. , and Doshi, R. 2020. China Is Maneuvering for International Leadership as the
Unites States Falters. Foreign Affairs Online, March.
Campbell, K. , and Ratner, E. 2018. The China Reckoning: How Beijing Defied American
Expectations. Foreign Affairs Online, March/April.
https://china.usc.edu/sites/default/files/campbell%20and%20ratner%202018%20the%20china%
20reckoning.pdf (February 16, 2020).
Casarini, N. 2018. Between Alignment and Competition: EU and US Approaches to China’s
Assertiveness in the South China Sea. Paper delivered at the workshop on US-China-Europe
Triangular Relations: Changes and Opportunities for Europe, Frankfurt, 1-3 November 2018.
Christiansen, T. , Kirchner, E. , and Wissenbach, U. 2019. The European Union and China.
London: Macmillan and Red Globe Press.
Council of the European Union . 2019a. Central Asia: Council Adopts a New EU Strategy for the
Region. Council of the EU Press Release, June 17.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/06/17/central-asia-council-
adopts-a-new-eu-strategy-for-the-region/ (November 19, 2019).
Council of the European Union . 2019b. Council Green Lights Rules on Screening of Foreign
Direct Investments. Council of the EU Press Release, March 5.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/03/05/council-greenlights-rules-
on-screening-of-foreign-direct-investments/ (March 11, 2019).
Duke, S. , and Wong. R. 2016. Chinese and EU Views on Military Security: Crafting
Cooperation. In Security Relations between China and the European Union: From Convergence
to Cooperation?, ed. E. Kirchner , T. Christiansen and H. Dorussen , 19–41. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316563243.
EEAS (European External Action Service) . 2018. Connecting Europe and Asia: Building Blocks
for an EU Strategy, September 19. https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-
homepage/50708/connecting-europe-and-asia-building-blocks-eu-strategy_en (February 4,
2020).
Esteban M. , and Otero-Iglesias, M. 2020. Europe in the Face of US-China Rivalry. In ed. U. A.
Bērziņa-Čerenkova , A. Ekman , L. Poggetti , B. Jerdén , J. Seaman , T. Summers and J.
Szczudlik , A Report by the European Think-tank Network on China (ETNC), January 2020.
http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2020/01/200122-Final-ETNC-report-Europe-in-
the-Face-of-US-China-Rivalry.pdf (February 8, 2020).
European Commission . 2018. Towards a Stronger International Role of the Euro. Brussels, 5
December 2018, COM 2018, 796 final. Brussels: European Commission.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/communication_towards_a_-
_stronger_international_role_of_the_euro.pdf (February 21, 2019).
European Commission . 2019. EU-China: A Strategic Outlook, 12 March.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/comm;ication-eu-china-a-strategic-
outlook.pdf (November 16, 2019).
García-Herrero, A. , Kwok, K. C. , Xiangdong, L. , Summers, T. , and Yansheng, Z. 2019. EU-
China Economic Relations to 2025: Building a Common Future. Joint Report by Bruegel,
Chatham House, China Center for International Economic Exchanges and The Chinese
University of Hong Kong. http://bruegel.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/CHHJ5627_China_EU_Report_170913_WEB.pdf (February 25,
2019).
Geeraerts, G. 2018. The EU and China: Modest Signs of Convergence? Egmont Security Policy
Brief, No. 101, December.
Gehrke, T. 2019. Redefining the EU-China Economic Partnership: Beyond Reciprocity Lies
Strategy. Egmont Policy Brief, No. 104, 19 February. http://www.egmontinstitute.be/redefining-
the-eu-china-economic-partnership-beyond-reciprocity-lies-strategy/ (February 15, 2020).
Gries, P. , and Wang, T. 2019. Will China Seize Taiwan? Foreign Affairs Online, February 15.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-02-15/will-china-seize-taiwan, (January 20,
2020).
Harris, T. 2019. Quality Infrastructure: Japan’s Robust Challenge to China’s Belt and Road
Initiative. Special Series – Southern (Dis)Comfort, 9 April.
https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/quality-infrastructure-japans-robust-challenge-to-chinas-
belt-and-road/ (August 1, 2019).
Kaplan, R. 2018. The Return of Marco Polo’s World: War, Strategy, and American Interests in
the Twenty-first Century. New York: Random House.
Kirchner, E. , Christiansen, T. , and Dorussen, H. , eds. 2016. Security Relations between China
and the European Union: From Convergence to Cooperation? Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316563243.
Klose, S. , Pepermans, A. , and Wang, L. 2017. An Uphill Struggle: Towards a Coordinated EU
Engagement with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. European Policy Brief, 21 November.
http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2017/11/EPB-48.pdf (December 12, 2019).
Laidi, Z. 2019. Can Europe Learn to Play Power Politics? Centre for European Reform, 28
November.
Mandelbaum, M. 2019. The New Containment: Handling Russia, China, and Iran. Foreign
Affairs Online, March/April. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-02-12/new-
containment (December 10, 2019).
Mastro, O. S. 2019. The Stealth Superpower: How China Hid its Global Ambitions. Foreign
Affairs Online, January/February. https://www.questia.com/magazine/1P4-2161594977/the-
stealth-superpower-how-china-hid-its-global-ambitions (November 29, 2019).
Min, Y. 2015. China and Competing Cooperation in Asia-Pacific: TPP, RCEP, and the New Silk
Road. Asian Security 11(3): 206–224.
Otero-Iglesias, M. , and Esteban, M. 2020. Introduction. In Europe in the Face of US-China
Rivalry, ed. M. Esteban and M. Otero-Iglesias along with U. A. Bērziņa-Čerenkova , A. Ekman ,
L. Poggetti , B. Jerdén , J. Seaman , T. Summers , and J. Szczudlik . European Think-tank
Network on China (ETNC), January 2020. http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/
uploads/2020/01/200122-Final-ETNC-report-Europe-in-the-Face-of-US-China- Rivalry.pdf?
(February 11, 2021).
Peel, M. , Kynge J. , and Hornby, L. 2019. EU Sets Target of 2020 for China Investment Deal.
Financial Times, March 7.
Pejsova, E. 2018. The Indo-Pacific: A Passage to Europe? EUISS Brief-Issue No. 3.
Pence, M. 2018. Remarks on The Administration’s Policy Towards China. Presented at the
Hudson Institute. https://www.hudson.org/events/1610-vice-president-mike-pence-s-remarks-
on-the-administration-s-policy-towards-china102018 (February 24, 2019).
Poling, G. , and Glaser, B. 2019. How the US Can Step Up in the South China Sea. Foreign
Affairs Online, January 16. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-01-16/how-us-
can-step-south-china-sea (January 20, 2020).
Prasad, R. 2018. EU Ambassadors Condemn China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The Diplomat,
April 21. https://thediplomat.com/2018/04/eu-ambassadors-condemn-chinas-belt-and-road-
initiative/ (January 14, 2020).
Rolland, N. 2019. Reports of Belt and Road’s Death Are Greatly Exaggerated: Don’t
Underestimate China’s Resilience. Foreign Affairs Online, January 29.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-01-29/reports-belt-and-roads-death-are-
greatly-exaggerated (January 10, 2020).
Saari, S. 2019. Connecting the Dots: Challenges to EU Connectivity in Central Asia. European
Union Institute for Security Studies, 3 June. https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/connecting-dots-
challenges-eu-connectivity-central-asia (August 18, 2019).
Small, A. 2018. The Backlash to Belt and Road: A South Asian Battle Over Chinese Economic
Power. Foreign Affairs Online, February 16. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-
02-16/backlash-belt-and-road (December 2, 2019).
Stanzel, A. , Kratz, A. , Szczudlik, J. , Pavlićević, D. , and Doyon, J. 2016. China’s Investment in
Influence: The Future of 16+1 Cooperation. China Analysis, London: European Council of
Foreign Relations, December. http://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/China_Analysis_Sixteen_Plus_One.pdf
(September 12, 2018).
Techau, J. 2020. Saving Europe from Corona’s Nasty Geopolitics. EU Observer, April 15.
https://euobserver.com/opinion/148057 (April 23, 2020).
The Economist . 2018. Briefing: China’s Belt and Road Initiative. July 28.
The Economist . 2020. Global Influence: Thanking Big Brother. April 18.
Ujvari, B. 2019. The Belt and Road Initiative: The ASEAN Perspective. Egmont Security Policy
Brief No. 107, March.
Xinhuanet . 2018. China’s Policy Paper on the European Union. 18 December 2018.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-12/18/c_137681829.htm (March 5, 2019).
Xuetong, Y. 2019. The Age of Uneasy Peace: Chinese Power in a Divided World. Foreign
Affairs, Jan/Feb.
Zhang, Z. , and Zhang, Y. 2019. PLA’s Support for Peace Emphasized. China Daily, June 3.
Ziegler, E. 2016. Great Powers, Civil Society and Authoritarian Diffusion in Central Asia. Central
Asian Survey 35(4): 549–569.

Reinterpreting the transatlantic relationship

Ackerman, Spencer . 2010. America’s Global Outlook, at an Inflection Point. Washington
Independent, May 28. http://serkadis.com/index/582574.
Albright, Madeleine K. 1998. Text of Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Interview on
NBC-TV “The Today Show” with Matt Lauer. February 19.
http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1998/980219a.html.
Allin, Dana H. and Erik Jones . 2011. Closing Argument: As Good as It Gets? Survival 53(3):
205–216. doi: 10.1080/00396338.2011.586219.
Asmus, Ronald D. 2002. Opening NATO’s Door: How the Alliance Remade Itself for a New Era.
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
BBC News . 2014. Ukraine Crisis: Transcript of Leaked Nuland-Pyatt Call. February 7.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957
Braun, Aurel . 2008. NATO-Russia Relations in the Twenty-First Century. ed. London:
Routledge.
Brinkley, Douglas . 1997. Democratic Enlargement: The Clinton Doctrine. Foreign Policy 106:
110–127. doi: 10.2307/1149177.
Bulman, May . 2016. Tens of Thousands Rally against TTIP Deal in Germany ahead of
President Obama Visit. Independent, April 24.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/thousands-protest-against-trans-atlantic-
trade-and-investment-in-germany-ahead-of-obama-visit-a6998201.html
Campbell, Kurt and Brian Andrews . 2013. Explaining the U.S. ‘Pivot’ to Asia. London: Chatham
House.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Americas/0813pp_piv
ottoasia.pdf
Carr, E. H. 1981. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939. London: Macmillan.
Cecchini, Paolo , Erik Jones and Jochen Lorentzen . 2001. Europe and the Concept of
Enlargement. Survival 43(1): 155–165.
Cooper, Charles A. and Benjamin Zycher . 1989. Perceptions of NATO Burden-Sharing. Santa
Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
Daalder, Ivo H. 1998. Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended. Foreign Service
Journal 75(12): 24–31.
Dayden, David . 2016. The Free-Trade Consensus is Dead, New Republic, May 5.
https://newrepublic.com/article/133310/free-trade-consensus-dead
Duke, Simon . 1987. U.S. Defence Bases in the United Kingdom: A Matter for Joint Decision?
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Duke, Simon . 1989. United States Military Forces and Installations in Europe. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Duke, Simon . 2008. The Future of EU-NATO Relations: A Case of Mutual Irrelevance through
Competition? European Integration 30(1): 27–43.
Duke, Simon . 2011. Pax or Pox Europeana after the Lisbon Treaty. The International Spectator
46(1). doi: 10.1080/03932729.2011.549756.
Duke, Simon . 2012. The Euro Crisis, the Other Crisis and the Need for Global Thinking.
Eipascope, Maastricht: European Institute for Public Administration.
Duke, Simon . 2014. The EU’s Existential Crisis: Far from Academic. Eipascope, Maastricht:
European Institute for Public Administration.
Duke, Simon . 2017. Europe as a Stronger Global Actor: Challenges and Strategic Responses.
London: Palgrave. doi: 10.1057/978-1-349-94945-8.
Duke, Simon and Carmen Gebhard . 2017. The EU and NATO’s Dilemmas with Russia and the
Prospects for Deconfliction. European Security 26(3): 389–390. doi:
10.1080/09662839.2017.1352577
EurActiv . 2015. Juncker: We can’t let EU relations with Russia be dictated by US. October 9.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/juncker-we-can-t-let-eu-relations-with-
russia-be-dictated-by-us/
Gates, Robert . 2011. “Transcript of Defense Secretary Gates’s Speech on NATO’s Future.”
Wall Street Journal, June 10. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/10/transcript-of-defense-
secretary-gatess-speech-on-natos-future/
Geithner, Timothy . 2014. Stress Test: Reflections on Financial Crisis. New York, NY: Crown.
Goldberg, Jeffrey . 2016. The Obama Doctrine. The Atlantic. April.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
Goldgeier, James . 2010. The Future of NATO. Council Special Report No. 51. New York, NY:
Council on Foreign Relations.
Haar, Roberta . 2015. When Does the University States Intervene Militarily for Humanitarian
Purposes? Politics and Policy 43(2): 287–314. doi: 10.1111/polp.12111.
Hartley, Keith and Todd Sandler . 1999. NATO Burden-Sharing: Past and Future. Journal of
Peace Research 36(6): 665–680. doi: 10.1177/0022343399036006004.
Jones, Erik . 2004a. Debating the Transatlantic Relationship: Rhetoric and Reality. International
Affairs 80(4): 595–612. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2004.00406.x.
Jones, Erik . 2004b. Leadership, Legitimacy, and the New Transatlantic Relationship, In From
Bush to Bush: U.S. Elections 2004, ed. Marisa R. Lino , Lucio Pegararo and Justin O. Frosini ,
115–127. Bologna: Libreria Bononia.
Jones, Erik . 2007. Populism in Europe. SAIS Review 27(1): 37–47. doi:
10.1353/sais.2007.0010.
Jones, Erik . 2011. European Security, Transatlantic Relations, and the Challenge to U.S.
Global Leadership, In European Security and the Future of Transatlantic Relations, ed.
Riccardo Alcaro and Erik Jones , 149–168. Rome: Edizioni Nuova Cultura.
Jones, Erik . 2015. The Euro: Irreversible or Conditional? Survival 57(5): 29–46. doi:
10.1080/00396338.2015.1090121.
Jones, Erik . 2016. Brexit’s Lessons for European Democracy. Survival 58(3): 41–49. doi:
10.1080/00396338.2016.1186976.
Jones, Erik . 2017. The Rise of Populism and the Fall of Europe. SAIS Review 37(1): 47–57.
doi: 10.1353/sais.2017.0004.
Jones, Erik . 2019. Populism in Europe: What Scholarship Tells Us. Survival 61(4): 7–30. doi:
10.1080/00396338.2019.1637125.
Joseph, Edward P. 2014. NATO Expansion: The Source of Russia’s Anger? The National
Interest, 1 May. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/nato-expansion-the-source-russias-anger-
10344.
Katzenstein, Peter J. and Robert O. Keohane , eds. 2006. Anti-Americanism in World Politics.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kupchan, Charles . 2009. “Interview, Council on Foreign Relations.”
http://www.cfr.org/nato/obamas-window-opportunity-improved-russia-eu-ties/p18326
Laïdi, Zaki . 1994. Un monde privé de sense. Paris: Fayard.
Letta, Enrico . 2016. What’s Obama’s European Legacy? Politico, April 21.
http://www.politico.eu/article/what-will-define-barack-obamas-european-legacy-eu-us/
Mandelbaum, Michael . 1996. Foreign Policy as Social Work, Foreign Affairs 75(1): 16–32. doi:
10.2307/20047465.
Mann, James . 2004. Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet. New York, NY:
Penguin.
Mann, Thomas E. and Norman J. Orenstein . 2012. It’s Even Worse than It Looks: How the
American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Montgomerie, Tim . 2016. Obama’s Brexit Overreach Is Typical of His Arrogance. The
Spectator April 23. http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/obamas-brexit-overreach-is-typical-of-
his-arrogance/
Nanto, Dick K. and Emma Chanlett-Avery . 2006. The Rise of China and Its Effect on Taiwan,
Japan, and South Korea: U.S. Policy Choices. CRS Report for Congress. Washington:
Congressional Research Service, January 13.
Nasr, Vali . 2013. The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat. New York, NY:
Random House.
Obama, Barack . 2007. Campaign 2008: Renewing American Leadership. Foreign Affairs 86(4):
2–16.
Obama, Barack . 2008. Berlin Speech, July 24.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/24/obama.words/.
Obama, Barack . 2011. Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya.
Washington, DC: The White House. March 28. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya
Obama, Barack . 2016a. Remarks by President Obama in Address to the People of Europe.
April 25. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/25/remarks-president-
obama-address-people-europe
Obama, Barack . 2016b. Remarks of President Barack Obama – State of the Union Address As
Delivered. Washington, DC: The White House, January 13. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-
press-office/2016/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-%E2%80%93-prepared-delivery-
state-union-address
Pompeo, Mike . 2018. Remarks by Secretary Pompeo at the German Marshall Fund. December
4. https://ua.usembassy.gov/remarks-by-secretary-pompeo-at-the-german-marshall-fund/.
Priest, Dana . 1999. United NATO Front Was Divided Within. Washington Post September 21,
p. A1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/sept99/airwar21.htm
Rachman, Gideon . 2016. Barack Obama and the End of Anglosphere. Financial Times, April
25. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9d285120-088d-11e6-a623-
b84d06a39ec2.html#axzz4A7x9V3qm
Rice, Condoleeza . 2000. Campaign 2000: Promoting the National Interest. Foreign Affairs
79(1): 45–62.
Roberts, Dan . 2015. Syria Decision Latest Blow to Obama’s Middle East Legacy. The
Guardian, 30 October. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/30/obama-deploy-troops-
syria-credibility
Roy, Olivier . 2006. Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Rudd, Kevin . 2013. “Speech to the IISS in London on 16 December.”
https://www.iiss.org/en/events/events/archive/2013-5126/december-c771/rudd-buchan-083c
Rumsfeld, Donald . 2003. Text of Donald Rumsfeld’s Remarks. BBC News, March 12.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2842943.stm
Samuels, David . 2016. The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru. New
York Times Magazine, May 5.
Sandbu, Martin . 2015. Europe’s Orphan: The Future of the Euro and the Politics of Debt.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Spiegel Online International . 2016. Germany Considers Easing Sanctions. May 30.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-considering-an-easing-of-russia-
sanctions-a-1094585.html
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America . 2002. Washington, DC: The
White House, September.
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America . 2015. Washington, DC: The
White House, February.
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America . 2017. Washington, DC: The
White House, December.
Trump, Donald . 2017a. The Inaugural Address. January 20.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/the-inaugural-address/
Trump, Donald . 2017b. Remarks by President Trump at NATO Unveiling of the Article 5 and
Berlin Wall Memorials – Brussels, Belgium. May 25. https://ru.usembassy.gov/remarks-
president-trump-nato/
Trump, Donald . 2017c Remarks by President Trump to the 72nd Session of the United Nations
General Assembly. September 19. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-
president-trump-72nd-session-united-nations-general-assembly/
Trump, Donald . 2018. Remarks by President Trump to the 73rd Session of the United Nations
General Assembly. September 25. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-
president-trump-73rd-session-united-nations-general-assembly-new-york-ny/
Trump, Donald . 2019. Remarks by President Trump to the 74th Session of the United Nations
General Assembly. September 25. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-
president-trump-74th-session-united-nations-general-assembly/
Van Rompuy, Herman . 2014. Europa in de storm: Lessen en uitdagingen. Leuven:
Davidsfonds.
Whitman, Richard G. and Stefan Wolff . 2010. The EU as Conflict Manager? The Case of
Georgia and Its Implications. International Affairs 86(1): 87–107. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2346.2010.00870.x.

European Union diplomacy and the Trump administration

Alcaro, Riccardo . 2011. Learning from a Troubled Experience – Transatlantic Lessons from the
Nuclear Standoff with Iran. International Spectator 46(4): 115–136.
Alcaro, Riccardo , John Peterson and Ettore Greco , eds. 2016. The West and the Global Power
Shift: Transatlantic Relations and Global Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Allen, Danielle . 2018. Trump’s Foreign Policy is Perfectly Coherent. Washington Post, January
23.
Beattie, Alan . 2019. WTO Set for Paralysis as US Blocks Appeals Body. Financial Times,
December 9.
Bouchard, Caroline , John Peterson , and Nathalie Tocci , eds. 2014. Multilateralism in the 21st
Century: Europe’s Quest for Effectiveness. London: Routledge.
Brown, Stephen . 2019. Diplomacy, Disrupted. Politico, November 14.
https://www.politico.eu/article/diplomacy-disrupted-foreign-policy-improvised/ (November 15,
2019).
Contiguglia, Cat . 2018. Trump: EU is One of United States’ Biggest Foes. Politico, July 15.
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-putin-russia-europe-one-of-united-states-biggest-
foes (November 15, 2019).
Cooper, Robert . 2000. The Post-Modern State and World Order. London: Atlantic Books.
Council of the European Union . 2019. Council Conclusions: EU Action to Strengthen Rules-
Based Multilateralism. Council Doc. 10341/19, Brussels: 17 June.
https://docplayer.net/141118334-10341-19-gd-br-1-relex-1-b.html (April 26, 2020).
Denza, Eileen . 2005. Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: the European Union and Iran.
European Foreign Affairs Review 10: 289–311.
Duke, Simon . 2017a. Europe as a Stronger Global Actor: Challenges and Strategic Responses.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Duke, Simon . 2017b. ‘Europe as a Stronger Global Actor: Challenges and Strategic
Responses, Abstract Chapter 9. Putting Effectiveness into Multilateralism.’
https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/europe-as-a-stronger-global-actor/11041490 (April 28,
2020).
Elgström, Ole and Smith, Michael . 2013. The EU and International Regimes. In Routledge
Handbook on the European Union and International Institutions: Performance, Policy, Power,
ed. Jørgensen, K. E. and Laatikainen, K. London: Routledge.
Elliott, Larry . 2019. WTO Faces Paralysis and Existential Threat if Trump Rejects Plan for
Reform. The Guardian, December 9.
Erlanger, Steven . 2019. Nuclear Deal Traps E.U. Between Iran and U.S. New York Times, May
8. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/world/europe/eu-iran-nuclear-sanctions.html (November
18, 2019).
European Council . 2003. A Secure Europe in a Better World: European Security Strategy.
Brussels. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/publications/european-
security-strategy-secure-europe-better-world/ (April 26, 2020).
European Union . 2016. Shared Vision, Global Action: A Stronger Europe. A Global Strategy for
the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. Brussels, June.
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eugs_review_web_0.pdf.
Geranmayeh, Ellie . 2017. The Coming Clash; Why Iran Will Divide Europe from the United
States. ECFR Policy Brief. London: European Council on Foreign Relations.
Goldstein, Judith , Miles Kahler , Robert Keohane and Anne-Marie Slaughter , eds. 2001.
Legalization and World Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grevi, Giovanni . 2009. The Interpolar World: A New Scenario. Occasional Paper 79. Paris: EU
Institute for Security Studies.
Grevi, Giovanni , and Alvaro de Vasconcelos , eds. 2008. Partnerships for Effective
Multilateralism: EU Relations with Brazil, China, India and Russia, Chaillot Paper 109, Paris: EU
Institute for Security Studies.
Harnisch, Sebastian . 2007. Minilateral Cooperation and Transatlantic Coalition-Building: the
E3/EU-3 Iran Initiative. European Security 16(1): 1–27.
Herszenhorn, David , Jacopo Barigazzi , and Rym Momtaz . 2019. Emmanuel Macron’s
Transatlantic Turbulence. Politico, November 13. https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-
macrons-transatlantic-turbulence (November 15, 2019).
Hill, Christopher . 2019. The Future of British Foreign Policy: Security and Diplomacy in a World
after Brexit. Cambridge: Polity.
Howorth, Jolyon . 2014. Security and Defence Policy of the European Union, 2nd ed.,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Howorth, Jolyon . 2018. Strategic Autonomy and EU-NATO Cooperation: Threat or Opportunity
for Transatlantic Defence Relations. Journal of European Integration 40(5): 523–537.
Howorth, Jolyon and Keeler, John eds. 2004. Defending Europe: The EU, NATO and the Quest
for European Autonomy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ikenberry, G. John . 2018. The End of Liberal International Order? International Affairs 94(1):
7–23.
Jokela, Juha . 2011. The G-20: A Pathway to Effective Multilateralism? Chaillot Paper, Paris:
EU Institute for Security Studies.
Jørgensen, Knud Erik , and Katie Laatikainen , eds. 2013. Routledge Handbook on the
European Union and International Institutions: Performance, Policy, Power. London: Routledge.
Keukeleire, Stephan and Tom Delreux 2014. “The EU and Multilateral Organizations.’ The
Foreign Policy of the European Union, 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Khan, Mereeen and Brunsden, Jim . 2019. Brussels New-look Team Raises Stakes with Trump.
Financial Times, September 11.
Kissack, Robert . 2013. The European Union and Multilateralism. In Routledge Handbook on
the European Union and International Institutions: Performance, Policy, Power, ed. Jørgensen,
K. E. and Laatikainen, K. London: Routledge.
Koops, Joachim and Giovalin Macaj , eds. 2015. The European Union as a Diplomatic Actor.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Laatikainen, Katie 2013. EU Multilateralism in a Multipolar World. In Routledge Handbook on
the European Union and International Institutions: Performance, Policy, Power, ed. Knud Erik
Jørgensen and Katie Laatikainen . London: Routledge.
Litwak, Robert . 2019. Nuclear Crises with North Korea and Iran: from Transformational to
Transactional Diplomacy. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center.
Mallet, Victor , Michael Peel and Tobias Buck . 2019. Merkel Locks Horns with Macron after He
Attacks Brain Dead NATO. Financial Times, November 8.
Mandelbaum, Michael . 2005. The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s
Government in the Twenty-First Century. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
Mattelaer, Alexander . 2019. The Resurgence of Bilateral Diplomacy in Europe. Egmont Paper
104, Brussels: Egmont Institute.
Missiroli, Antonio . 2015. The EU in a Multiplex World. EUISS Issue Brief 7/2015. Paris: EU
Institute for Security Studies.
Mogherini, Federica . 2018. Speech by HR/VP Mogherini at the Annual EU Ambassadors
Conference 2018. Brussels: European External Action Service.
https://newsroom.consilium.europa.eu/videos/12r0300-opening-speech-at-the-2018-eu-
ambassadors-conference-extracts-20180903 (April 28, 2020).
Möller, Kay . 2002. “Diplomatic Relations and Mutual Strategic Perceptions: China and the EU.”
China Quarterly, March, 10–32.
Nau, Henry . 1990. The Myth of American Decline: Leading the World Economy into the 1990s.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nau, Henry . 2002. At Home Abroad: Identity and Power in American Foreign Policy. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Paris, Roland . 2019. Can Middle Powers Save the Liberal World Order? US and the Americas
Programme Briefing. London: Chatham House.
Patrick, Stewart . 2017. Trump and World Order: the Return of Self-Help. Foreign Affairs 96(2):
52–57.
Peterson, John . 2018. Present at the Destruction? The Liberal Order in the Trump Era. The
International Spectator 53(1): 28–44.
Pisani-Ferry, Jean . 2018. Should We Give Up on Global Governance? Policy Contribution:
Issue No. 17. Brussels: Bruegel.
Prescott, Jeff . 2019. Trump Doesn’t Deserve Any Credit for His Disruptive Foreign Policy.
Foreign Policy, 14 March.
Rachman, Gideon . 2019. Europe Rightly Aspires to Be a Power Project. Financial Times, 8
October.
Rees, Wyn . 2009. The US-EU Security Relationship. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Renard, Thomas . 2015. Partnerships for Effective Multilateralism? Assessing the Compatibility
Between EU Bilateralisms, (Inter-)Regionalism and Multilateralism. Cambridge Review of
International Affairs 29(1): 18–35.
Rubin, Jennifer . 2018. Why Transactional Foreign Policy is Destined to Fail. Washington Post,
19 October.
Ruggie, John G. ed. 1993. Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional
Form. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Sanger, David . 2019. In Confronting Iran, President May Find the World is Wary. New York
Times, September 18.
Sauer, Tom . 2015. The EU as a Coercive Diplomatic Actor? The EU-3 Initiative Towards Iran.
In The European Union as a Diplomatic Actor, ed. J. Koops and G. Macaj Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Sloan, Stanley . 2016. Defense of the West: NATO, the European Union, and the Transatlantic
Bargain. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Smith, Michael . 2011a. The EU, the US and Global Public Goods: Competing Models or Two
Sides of the Same Coin? In Normative Power Europe: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives,
ed. R. Whitman . London: Routledge.
Smith, Michael . 2011b. European Responses to US Diplomacy: Special Relationships,
Transatlantic Governance and World Order. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 6(3–4): 299–317.
Smith, Michael . 2016. Is the European Union an Effective Multilateralist? Role Conceptions and
Role Performance in the EU’s Approach to Global Governance. Paper presented at the UACES
Annual/Research Conference, 5–7 September.
Smith, Michael . 2018. The European Union, the United States and the Crisis of Contemporary
Multilateralism. Journal of European Integration 40(5): 539–553.
Smith, Michael , Stephan Keukeleire and Sophie Vanhoonacker , eds. 2016. The Diplomatic
System of the European Union: Evolution, Change and Challenges. London: Routledge.
Trump, Donald , and Tony Schwartz . 1987. The Art of the Deal. New York, NY: Random
House.
Verola, Nicola . 2019. The Age of Assertive Bilateralism. Aspenia Special Issue ‘History is Back:
Europe, China, the United States and the Vicissitudes of Power’. Nos. 82/83/84: 169–179.
Weiss, Thomas and Ramesh Thakur . 2010. Global Governance and the UN: an Unfinished
Journey. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Witte, Griff and Michael Birnbaum . 2019. Trump Foreign Policy Under Attack from All Sides at
European Security Conference. Washington Post, February 16.
Young, Oran . 1982. Regime Dynamics: The Rise and Fall of International Regimes.
International Organization 36(2): 277–297.
Youngs, Richard . 2011. The EU’s Role in World Politics: A Retreat from Liberal
Internationalism. London: Routledge.
Youngs, Richard , and Michael Smith . 2018. The EU and the Global Order: Contingent
Liberalism. The International Spectator 53(1): 45–56.

Mogherini and the Holy Grail

Council of the European Union . 2016. Implementation Plan on Security and Defence. Brussels:
Council Secretariat, November 14. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/22460/eugs-
implementation-plan-st14392en16.pdf.
European Commission and High Representative . 2018. Connecting Europe and Asia: Building
Blocks for an EU Strategy. Brussels: EU, September 19.
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/joint_communication_-_connecting_europe_and_asia_-
_building_blocks_for_an_eu_strategy_2018-09-19.pdf.
Mogherini, Federica . 2016. Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. A Global
Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy (EUGS). Brussels: European
External Action Service, June 2016.
http://www.eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf.

Conclusion
Duke, Simon , and Ojanen, Hanna. 2006. Bridging Internal and External Security: Lessons from
the European Security and Defence Policy. European Integration 28 (5), 477–494.
Koops, Joachim A . 2012. NATO’s Influence on the Evolution of the European Union as a
Security Actor. In The Influence of International Institutions on the European Union: When
Multilateralism Hits Brussels, eds. Oriol Costa and Knud Erik Jorgensen, 155-185. Houndmills,
Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lippert, Barbara , Ondarza, Nicolai von and Perthes, Volker , eds. 2019. “European Strategic
Autonomy: Actors, Issues, Conflicts of Interests’. SWP Research Paper 2019/RP 04, March
2019.” Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. https://www.swp-
berlin.org/10.18449/2019RP04/.