Involvement of EU Member States in PESCO Projects: A Comparative Analysis

• Authors: Karolina Gawron-Tabor , Rafał Willa

Title variants

PL

Zaangażowanie państw członkowskich UE w projekty Pesco – analiza porównawcza

Abstracts

PL

Wspólnota Europejska/Unia Europejska zrodziła się jako organizacja ekonomiczna, która poprzez pogłębioną współpracę, zwłaszcza handlową, pozwolić miała na szybką odbudowę Starego Kontynentu ze zgliszczy wojennych. Apetyty przywódców państw europejskich rosły jednak w miarę postępujących procesów integracyjnych – sukces ekonomiczny napędzał wolę dalszej pogłębionej integracji państw. Ten stan rzeczy pozwolił wyposażyć organizację w możliwość decydowania i wpływania na decydentów krajowych w kolejnych sferach dotąd wyłącznej aktywności państw. Niemniej na przestrzeni lat państwa unijne zazdrośnie i z wielką determinacją strzegły kompetencji dotyczących szeroko pojmowanego bezpieczeństwa, w tym nade wszystko obronności. Kolejne próby przyspieszenia integracji w tej materii okazywały się nie na tyle skuteczne, by można było mówić o realnej wspólnej polityce obronnej. Jedna z ostatnich inicjatyw – PESCO – ma pomóc odmienić tę sytuację. Konieczne staje się zatem udzielenie odpowiedzi na pytania: Czym ono jest? Jak państwa UE zapatrują się na rozwijanie tej koncepcji współpracy? Jak ta współpraca wygląda na wczesnym etapie jej wdrażania? Jakie wreszcie czynniki determinują zaangażowanie państw „starej” i „nowej” UE? Niniejszy tekst to próba udzielenia odpowiedzi na te właśnie pytania.

EN

The European Economic Community/European Union was born as an economy-oriented organization, which was to facilitate rebuilding of the Old Continent after WWII through extensive cooperation, particularly in trade. However, the appetites of the state leaders were growing along the progress of the integration processes; the economic success was an argument for further integration of the European countries. Due to this, the organization was given the ability to make decisions and influence decision-makers at the national level in subsequent spheres that earlier were the sole prerogative of states. Still, for many years EU members determinedly guarded their competences regarding broadly understood security, predominantly defence. Successive attempts to accelerate integration in this area were not effective enough to develop a real common defence policy. One of the last initiatives, Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), is supposed to help change this situation. It is therefore necessary to pose several questions: What is PESCO? What is EU members’ attitude towards developing this form of cooperation? What does this cooperation look like at the early implementation stages? What factors determine the involvement of the ‘old’ and ‘new’ EU member states? This article is an attempt to answer these questions.

Keywords

EN

PESCO; military security; defense; military cooperation

PL

PESCO; bezpieczeństwo militarne; współpraca wojskowa; obrona

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Journal: Athenaeum. Polskie Studia Politologiczne
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 79
• Pages: 21-46

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Karolina Gawron-Tabor

• Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

author

Rafał Willa

• Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

References

• Annex II to the Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2315 of 11 December 2017, OJ L 331, 14.12.2017.
• Arteaga, F. (2018, September). PeSCo. The Spanish Perspective. ARES Policy Paper, 27. Retrieved from: https://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ARES27.pdf.
• Barbé, E., & Morillas, P. (2019). The EU Global Strategy: The Dynamics of a More Politicized and Politically Integrated Foreign Policy. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(6), 753–770. DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2019.1588227.
• Béraud-Sudreau, L., Efstathiou, Y.S., & Hannigan, C. (2019, May 14). Keeping the Momentum in European Defence Collaboration: An Early Assessment of PESCO Implementation. IISS Report. Retrieved from: https://www.iiss.org/researchpaper//2019/05/pesco.
• Billon-Galland, A., & Efstathiou, Y.S. (2019, February 20). Are PESCO Projects Fit for Purpose?. European Defence Policy Brief. Retrieved July 10, 2021, from: https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Final-PESCOpolicy-brief-ELN-IISS-20-Feb-2019-ilovepdf-compressed.pdf.
• Billon-Galland, A., & Quencez, M. (2017, October 1). Can France and Germany Make PESCO Work as a Process Toward EU Defense?. Policy Brief, 33. Retrieved June 17, 2021, from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep18774?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
• Biscop, S. (2016, June 1). The EU Global Strategy: Realpolitik with European Characteristics. Egmont Security Policy Brief, 75. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep06638.
• Biscop, S. (2018). European Defence: Give PESCO a Chance. Survival, 60(3), 161–180. DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2018.1470771.
• Biscop, S. (2020, May 5). European Defence and PESCO: Don’t Waste the Chance. Retrieved July 5, 2021, from: https://euidea.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/euidea_pp_1.pdf.
• Black, J., Jenkins, D., Persi Paoli, G., Kepe, M., Kokkoris, A., & Hlavka, J. (2016, April). Central and Eastern European Countries: Measures to Enhance Balanced Defence Industry in Europe and to Address Barriers to Defence Cooperation across Europe. Technical Annex: Country Profiles and Appendixes. Retrieved July 7, 2021, from: https://eda.europa.eu/docs/default-source/documents/rr-1459-eda-central-andeastern-europe-report---technical-annex---final.pdf.
• Blockmans, S., & Crosson, D.M. (2019, December). Differentiated Integration within PESCO: Clusters and Convergence in EU Defence. CEPS Research Report, 4. Retrieved from: https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/RR2019_04_ Differentiated-integration-within-PESCO.pdf.
• Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2315 of 11 December 2017, OJ L 331, 14.12.2017.
• Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/340 of 6 March 2018, OJ L 65, 8.03.2018.
• Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/909 of 25 June 2018, OJ L 161, 26.6.2018.
• Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1797 of 19 November 2018, OJ L 294, 21.11.2018.
• Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1909 of 12 November 2019, OJ L 293, 14.11.2019.
• Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1746 of 20 November 2020, OJ L 393, 23.11.2020.
• Council Recommendation of 6 March 2018, OJ C 88, 8.03.2018.
• Council Recommendation of 15 October 2018, OJ C 374, 16.10.2018.
• Deschaux-Dutard, D. (2019). The French-German Military Cooperation and the Revival of European Defence After Brexit: Between Reality and Political Myth. In: C.A. Baciu, & J. Doyle (Eds.). Peace, Security and Defence Cooperation in Post-Brexit Europe (pp. 53–77). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-12418-2_3.
• Duke, S. (2019). Will Brexit Damage Our Security and Defence? The Impact on the UK and EU. Cham: Springer.
• Gotkowska, J. (2019, November). W stronę sojuszu wojskowego. Perspektywy Europejskiej Unii Bezpieczeństwa i Obrony. OSW Report. Retrieved from: https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/Raport_PL_W-stron%C4%99-sojuszu-wojskowego_net.pdf.
• Handl, V. (2010). Češi a Němci jako spojenci: sbližování strategické kultury [Czech and Germans as Allies: Convergence of Strategic Cultures]. In: P. Drulák & V. Střítecký (Eds.). Hledání českých zájmů. Mezinárodní bezpečnost [Searching for Czech National Interest: International Security] (pp. 126–150). Prague: Ústav mezinárodních vztahů.
• International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). (2020, February). The Military Balance 2020. Retrieved July 20, 2021, from: https://www.iiss.org/publications/the-military-balance/military-balance-2020-book.
• Italian Chief of Defence. (2004). Italy: Chod’s Strategic Concept. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from: https://css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/publications/publication.html/156793.
• Jireš, J. (2013). Czech Republic. In: H. Biehl, B. Giegerich, & A. Jonas (Eds.). Strategic Cultures in Europe: Security and Defence Policies Across the Continent (pp. 69–83). Cham: Springer.
• Jopp, M., & Schubert, J. (2019). PESCO and New Methods of Intergovernmental Integration. L’Europe en Formation, 2, 121–139.
• Maulny, J.P., & Di Bernardini, L. (2019, May). Moving PeSCo Forward: What Are the Next Steps?. ARES Policy Paper, 39. Retrieved from: https://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ARES-39.pdf.
• Mauro, F. & Jehin, O. (2019, April).A European Army to Do What?. Analysis #2 – Europe, Strategy, Security Programme. Retrieved July 15, 2021, from: https://www.irisfrance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ProgEurope-MAURO-JEHIN-2-ENGEU-army-2019.pdf.
• Micu, M. (2013). Romania. In: H. Biehl, B. Giegerich, & A. Jonas (Eds.). Strategic Cultures in Europe: Security and Defence Policies Across the Continent (pp. 293–305). Cham: Springer.
• Ministère de la Défense. (2013, July). White Paper. Defence and National Security 2013. Twelve Key Points. Retrieved June 15, 2021, from: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/167315/France%20White%20Paper%202012.pdf.
• Ministerstvo Zahraničních Věcí České Republiky. (2015a, July 13).Koncepce zahraniční politiky České republiky [Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Czech Republic]. Retrieved July 1, 2021, from: https://www.databaze-strategie.cz/cz/mzv/strategie/koncepce-zahranicni-politiky-ceske-republiky.
• Ministerstvo Zahraničních Věcí České Republiky. (2015b). Bezpečnostní strategie České republiky. Retrieved August 1, 2021, from: https://www.vlada.cz/assets/ppov/brs/dokumenty/bezpecnostni-strategie-2015.pdf.
• Morillas, P. (2020). Autonomy in Intergovernmentalism: The Role of De Novo Bodies in External Action during the Making of the EU Global Strategy.Journal of European Integration, 42(2), 231–246. DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2019.1666116.
• Nádudvari, A., Etl, A., & Bereczky, N. (2020, April 23). Quo Vadis, PESCO? An Analysis of Cooperative Networks and Capability Development Priorities. ISDS Analyses, 15. Retrieved from: http://real.mtak.hu/108298/1/ISDS_Analyses_2020_15_QuovadisPesco.pdf.
• NATO Secretary General. (2021, March 31). The Secretary General’s Annual Report 2020. Retrieved June 27, 2021, from: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/3/pdf/sgar20-en.pdf.
• Parzymies, S. (2001). European Orientation in Polish Security Policy. In: R. Kuźniar (Ed.). Poland’s Security Policy 1989–2000 (pp. 286-320). Warsaw: Scholar.
• Prime Minister of the Spanish Government. (2013).The National Security Strategy 2013. Sharing a Common Project. Retrieved June 5, 2021, from: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/177647/The%20National%20Security%20Strategy%20of%20Spai.pdf.
• Protocol No. 10, OJ C 202, 7.06.2016.
• Protocol No. 11, OJ C 202, 7.06.2016.
• Sabatino, E., & Marrone, A. (2020, November 20). Europe of Defence in the New World (Dis)Order: Choices for Italy. Retrieved June 30, 2021, from: https://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iai2020.pdf.
• SIPRI. (A). Data for All Countries 1949–2020 [Excel Spreadsheet]. Retrieved June 30, 2021, from: https://sipri.org/databases/milex.
• SIPRI. (B). SIPRI Arms Transfers Database. Retrieved June 30, 2021, from: https://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/toplist.php.
• SIPRI. (C). SIPRI Military Expenditure Database. Retrieved June 30, 2021, from: https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex.
• Svendsen, Ø. (2019). Brexit and the Future of EU Defence: A Practice Approach to Differentiated Defence Integration. Journal of European Integration, 41(8), 993–1007. DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2019.1622540.
• Tálas, P. (2020). The Role of NATO and the EU in Poland’s Security and Defence Policy. In: G. Varga (Ed.). The NATO and EU Relations of Central and Eastern European Nations (pp. 57–70). Budapest: Dialóg Campus.
• Terlikowski, M. (2013). Poland. In: H. Biehl, B. Giegerich, & A. Jonas (Eds.). Strategic Cultures in Europe: Security and Defence Policies Across the Continent (pp. 269–280). Cham: Springer.
• Tocci, N. (2016). The Making of the EU Global Strategy. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 461–472. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2016.1232559.
• Treaty on European Union (TEU) [Consolidated Version], OJ C 202, 7.06.2016.
• Varga, G. (2020). The Role of NATO and EU CSDP in the Hungarian Security and Defence Policy. In: G. Varga (Ed.). The NATO and EU Relations of Central and Eastern European Nations (pp. 13–24). Budapest: Dialóg Campus.
• Zandee, D. (2018, September 28). PESCO Implementation: The Next Challenge. Clingendael Policy Report. Retrieved July 16, 2021, from: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/PB_Pesco_Sept2018.pdf.

Identifiers

DOI

10.15804/athena.2023.79.02

Biblioteka Nauki

22425266