This Final Paper consists of analysis of NATO and EU role to Lithuanian security by identifying our days and future threats to Lithuanian security and identification of the future of the Lithuanian security policy. In the first part of this final paper was glanced through NATO and EU CFSP and DP history, highlighting problems of EU integration to Euroatlantic security. It can be assumed that more then half of continuing Cold War century NATO has assured the creation and the welfare of Eastern Europe. The collective defense remains further of one’s NATO functions, by that time EU is not responsible of European collective defense. EU stands just in crisis management. The NATO��s and EU’ intercourse problem maintains historical and national color. The second part was dedicated to analyze the evolution of Lithuanian membership in NATO, EU CFSP and DP. It was noticeable that Lithuanian NATO membership gives security to country against straight military invasion by discouraging potential threats. The EU membership gives economical sanctions to threat object just de facto i. m. after, for example, the invasion to Lithuania. But according to NATO and EU agreements, nations which belong to these organizations are allowed to choose the way of reaction so it’s might depend on relationship of each of them and Lithuania. The type and the spectrum of threats were identified in the last part and there was made an analysis which of them and in what time dimension might occur against... [to full text]

The objective of this thesis is to evaluate European States&rsquo / efforts to develop a coherent and effective foreign and security policy in the context of historical evolution of the CFSP. In this thesis, European States&rsquo / efforts to develop a coherent and effective foreign and security policy will be evaluated in three international political contexts. First period is Post World War II Period, second one is Post-Cold War Period and third one is Post September 11 Period. In the context of Post World War II period, European States&rsquo / efforts to develop a coherent and effective foreign and security policy is shaped by the conditions of Cold War, Bipolar World and threat of Soviet expansionism towards Western Europe and characterized by the attempts such as European Defence Community, Fouchet Plan and European Political Cooperation. In the context of Post-Cold War period, European States&rsquo / efforts to develop a coherent and effective foreign and security policy were shaped by ex-Yugoslavian Conflict in early 90s which brought new security challenges such as ethnic conflicts and instability in the ex-Communist States in Central and Eastern Europe. EU&rsquo / s attempts were characterized by the CFSP which was launched by the Maastricht Treaty and the CESDP which emerged after Kosovo War with Saint Malo Declaration as defence dimension of the CFSP. In the context of Post September 11 period, European States&rsquo / efforts to develop a coherent and effective foreign and security policy were shaped by global fight against international terrorism. EU&rsquo / s attempts were characterized by adoption of European Security Strategy which accepted international terrorism, organized crime and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as key threats towards Europe and aimed at developing a coherent vision of strategic objectives, shared threat assessment for European States in order to prevent divisions among EU States in future international events. The main argument of this thesis is that in order to be an important and effective actor in global politics, EU Member States should act coherently and speak with one voice. Their influence on important international issues is greater if they act as a coherent actor rather than acting individually.

The thesis explores the use of the term European Strategic Autonomy in the Common Security and Defence Policy (CFSP) of the European Union. The security environment around Europe has become increasingly unstable in the last 15 years. The EU Commission has tried to take account of the deteriorating geopolitical landscape by publishing an EU Global Strategy document in 2016 to share its vision for a stronger Europe. The document calls for strategic autonomy without properly defining it. Since then, many policy papers have captured the term and used it as a popular buzzword. Because it has not been properly defined on the political level, European Strategy Autonomy (ESA) was subject to speculations and national interpretations which did not help to advance the debate. Based on an extensive literature review the paper provides a comprehensive understanding by giving an historic overview and presenting different configurations of ESA in the contemporary context. A comparative case study, including France, Germany, and the Czech Republic has been conducted to assess their interpretation of the notion. The result of the case studies showed inherently different perceptions underlaid by different motivations and identifies the political layer to be the biggest challenge for moving forward with the topic....

The aim of my work is to apply the political-geographical or geopolitical optics to a specific foreign security activities of the EU, i.e. to put political aims and activities of political-geographical framework. In geopolitical terms, it is necessary to assess the potential and the current deployment of civilian missions. For this purpose, in accordance with the hypothesis of my work, that the civilian aspects of crisis management CSDP are based mainly on the willingness and desire of Member States in a given area or country involved should be analyzed for the three major priorities of Member States (UK, Germany and France) in civilian areas (see National Security Strategy). The work compares the current activities of EU civil security-CSDP and geopolitical intentions of the three great European powers, Germany, France and Great Britain. Civilian CSDP should concentrate in geographic areas that are of key importance to most member states and especially for three large powers. The question is whether the major European powers reflect their priorities in EU policy in its entirety or whether there are other factors that prevent them from doing so. Such factors include decisions based on consensus and the growing power of the European Commission, which defends its interests very hard in the CSDP. Large Member...

One of the major analytical shortcomings regularly made by EU and NATO experts today lies with exclusively seeing the European defence project as a post-World War II (WWII) phenomenon and the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) as mainly a post-Cold War product. No analyst has so far seriously explored the idea of European defence predating WWII and the 20th century. Instead, since 1999 one frequently reads and hears about the ‘anomalous,’ ‘elusive’ CSDP suddenly complicating transatlantic relations. But the CSDP is hardly an oddity or aberration, and it is certainly not as mysterious as some might suggest. Drawing extensively from primary sources and predicated on an overarching evolutionist approach, this thesis shows that the present CSDP is an ephemeral security and defence concept, only the latest of its kind and full of potential. Drawing its deepest ideational roots from the (pre-)Enlightenment era, the CSDP leads to a pan-European defence almost irreversibly. A common defence for Europe is quite possible and, due to the growing impact of the exogenous (multipolar) momentum, can be realized sooner rather than later even without a full-fledged European federation. / May 2016

This dissertation scrutinises two related claims that were particularly heightened in 2009 as the European Union (EU) was celebrating the first tenth anniversary of its European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), the implementing arm of its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). First, the two policy frameworks allegedly embodied sufficient added value for bettering EU intervention for human protection purposes in third places. Second, the ESDP supposedly enabled the EU to make a difference in its response to two bloody wars that broke out in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) successively in 1996 and 1998. This thesis argues that the alleged added value and difference have been overstated at best. While various studies have taken a similar position, they have important shortcomings for at least four reasons: lack of a comprehensive account of the CFSP motives, capacities, and response; exclusive focus on civil and military operations; focus on the post-Second Congo War period; and a lack of conceptual clarity regarding two key terms – ‘conflict resolution’ and ‘peacebuilding’. This thesis goes beyond generalisation and undertakes a forensic examination of the CFSP statements, decisions, and actions precisely through the lens of Conflict Resolution (CR): a specific subject area of study with its own normative, theoretical, and practical advantages and shortcomings; and with a more comprehensive and indeed seminal conceptualisation of peacebuilding. The outcome is a far more nuanced assessment of failure and success of the EU’s peace endeavours in this context than can be obtained through a broad-brush approach to analysis.

This dissertation traces military integration in Europe from the 1940s to the early 2000s in order to reveal the growth of a common European defence identity. Four factors characterize its approach. First, European defence identity is analyzed in relation to the broader path of European integration and its historical context, showing connections with key turning points in European integration, with the evolution of Franco-German relations and European-American relations, with the Cold War and subsequent Collapse of Communism, etc. Second, the dissertation applies theories of identity formation to guide the historical analysis. This approach draws attention, for example, to the important roles that borders and symbols played in European defence identity formation. Third, the thesis adopts a hybrid “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach; one side considers formal programs, policies, and institutions that promoted a European defence identity, while the other takes stock of public perceptions, actions by “rank and file” soldiers, etc. This dual approach helps to reveal more fully the complex, negotiated character of European defence identity formation. Finally, this thesis traces the growth of a European defence identity as a path of ideological and emotional change, growing commitment, and trust-building that spanned decades.

Le contrôle juridictionnel de la coopération intergouvernementale dans l'Union européenne a longtemps fait difficulté. Initialement, la mise à l'écart du juge a conditionné le recours à cette coopération organisée "dans" l'Union. Pourtant, chaque avancée des traités a entraîné un progrès du juge de l'Union et, dès l'origine, la coopération a donné lieu à la formation d'une jurisprudence significative. La coopération intergouvernementale dans l'Union constitue un terrain privilégié d'investigation, susceptible de contribuer à enrichir l'étude d'un processus, celui de la juridictionnalisation de l'Union. Loin de stériliser cette hypothèse, le traité de Lisbonne l'a confirmée et valorisée. L'analyse de la jurisprudence révèle l'existence d'un modèle de contrôle juridictionnel de la coopération intergouvernementale dans l'Union. Celui-ci repose sur le principe d'un contrôle. Forme d'aboutissement du processus, dont elle permet de saisir l'implantation et la portée, l'admission du principe au niveau constitutionnel marque aussi une nouvelle étape dans ce processus. Le juge de l'Union progresse au sein d'un système de contrôle, composé du juge national et de la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme. Les interactions entre juges sont essentielles pour comprendre l'évolution de l'office du juge de l'Union. S'il est classique d'attendre d'un juge constitutionnel qu'il régule le système institutionnel et qu'il assure la protection des droits fondamentaux, les exigences matérielles et opérationnelles de l'action intergouvernementale contribuent au déploiement d'une fonction juridictionnelle ordinaire. Ces deux axes de travail, principe et fonctions, jettent un éclairage d'ensemble sur le modèle en construction et permettent d'appréhender dans toute sa complétude le processus de juridictionnalisation de la coopération intergouvernementale dans l'Union. / During a long time, the judicial control of the intergovernmental cooperation in the European Union remained a difficulty. Initially, the sideline of the judge conditioned the use of this cooperation, organised “in” the European Union. However, each step forward of the Treaties led to a progress of the judge of the Union and, from the very beginning, cooperation has resulted in the creation of a significant jurisprudence. Indeed, intergovernmental cooperation in the European Union constitutes a privileged field for investigation, which may contribute to enrich the study of a process, the process of judicialization of the European Union. Away from sterilizing this hypothesis, it was eventually confirmed and valued by the Lisbon Treaty. The analyse of the jurisprudence concerning the common foreign and security policy and the police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters reveals the existence of a model of judicial control over the intergovernmental cooperation in the European Union. This model is based on the principle of control. The admission of the principle, at the constitutional level, is a form of outcome of the process; it allows understanding the establishment and the extent of the process, as well as it materializes a new step in this process. The European judge evolves in a system of control, constituted by the national Court and the European Court of Human Rights. The judges’ interactions are essential in order to understand the evolution of the role of the European Union judge. Although it appears classical to expect from a constitutional judge that he rules the institutional system and that he ensures the protection of fundamental rights, the intergovernmental action material and operational requirements contribute to the deployment of an ordinary judicial function. These two axes of research, principle and functions, project a comprehensive highlight on the model under construction, and allow apprehending, in its entirety, the process of judicialization of the intergovernmental cooperation in the European Union.

La Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune (PESC) est la politique de l'Union Européenne qui suscite le moins d'intérêt et le moins d'attention dans la doctrine de droit de l'Union Européenne. Ce statut d'enfant-perdu de la doctrine s'explique aisément : la Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune multiplie les singularités, et en tout premier lieu celle d'être généralement présentée comme étant la politique intergouvernementale par excellence de l'Union européenne. La PESC présente également la singularité d'être une politique opérationnelle. Plus de trente opérations civiles et militaires ont ainsi été menées au-delà des frontières de l'Union européenne. La PESC présente également la singularité d'être une politique opérationnelle. Plus de trente opérations civiles et militaires ont ainsi été menées au-delà des frontières de l'Union européenne depuis 2003 et le recours aux mesures restrictives ne faiblit pas. De la même manière, la conduite et la réussite de telles opérations a nécessité tant la mise sur pied d'institutions, d'organes et d'agences que l'établissement d'une base industrielle et technologique de défense et d'un marché intérieur de la défense. Le développement et l'affermissement de cette politique opérationnelle de l'Union européenne ne se sont cependant pas faits sans l'intervention des institutions européennes. Le Parlement, la Commission européenne et la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne exercent, au contraire, un contrôle politique, financier et juridictionnel toujours plus poussé sur cette politique. C'est alors la fin de la singularité de la Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune, laquelle tend à devenir comme les autres et à s'inscrire en cohérence avec le modèle d'intégration de l'Union européenne. / The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) is the EU policy, that arouses the least interest and attention in the doctrine of law of the European Union. This lack of consideration can easily be explained : the Common Foreign and Security Policy is peculiar is numerous ways, and first and foremost it is specific for being the quintessential intergovernmental policy of the European union. CFSP also presents the difference of being an operational policy. More than thirty civil and military operations have been carried out beyond the borders of the European Union since 2003 and the use of restrictive measures is not weakening. In the samie vein, the conduct and success of such operations required the development of institutions, bodies and agencies as well as the establishment of an European Defence Technological and Industrial Base and the creation of an internal market of defense. However, this operational policy of the European Union could not have been developed and strengthened without intervention of European institutions. The Parliament, the European Commission and the Court of justice of the European Union exercise more and more elaborate political, financial and judicial control over this policy. On this las aspect, the Common Foreign and Security Policy tends to become an European policy like any other and be consistent with the model of integration of the European Union.

This dissertation traces military integration in Europe from the 1940s to the early 2000s in order to reveal the growth of a common European defence identity. Four factors characterize its approach. First, European defence identity is analyzed in relation to the broader path of European integration and its historical context, showing connections with key turning points in European integration, with the evolution of Franco-German relations and European-American relations, with the Cold War and subsequent Collapse of Communism, etc. Second, the dissertation applies theories of identity formation to guide the historical analysis. This approach draws attention, for example, to the important roles that borders and symbols played in European defence identity formation. Third, the thesis adopts a hybrid “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach; one side considers formal programs, policies, and institutions that promoted a European defence identity, while the other takes stock of public perceptions, actions by “rank and file” soldiers, etc. This dual approach helps to reveal more fully the complex, negotiated character of European defence identity formation. Finally, this thesis traces the growth of a European defence identity as a path of ideological and emotional change, growing commitment, and trust-building that spanned decades.