European Union

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Tuesday, 15 July 2025, from 11:00 to 12:30 in Brussels (room Antall 2Q2), the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) will hold a public hearing on the implications of the decisions of the ICJ and ICC on the EU's role in supporting a peaceful solution for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This hearing intends to clarify the overall situation and to provide both legal and political insights in the search for constructive EU positions on the matter.
The experts invited are Gleider Hernández, Professor of Public International Law, KU Leuven and Michael Meier, Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University Law Center (GULC) and Associate Fellow. Geneva Centre for Security Policy.
Programme
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

DRAFT REPORT on the EU-US political relations
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Michał Szczerba

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Written by Suzana Elena Anghel,

koya979 / Shutterstock.com

At three recent European Councils (December 2012, December 2013 and June 2015), the Heads of State or government have called for a deepening of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) namely by strengthening its crisis management dimension and further developing civilian and military capabilities. The June 2016 European Council reverted to security and defence policy with particular attention to the strengthening of the relationship with NATO, including on the development of complementary and interoperable defence capabilities.

But what are the achievements? Is there a way of measuring progress made over the past years? Is there a gap between intentions/declarations and deeds? What are the challenges and how to address them?

The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) will address these questions at a roundtable discussion on ‘The European Council and CSDP: success or failure?’ on 27 September 2016, 13h30-15h00, in the European Parliament’s Library main reading room in Brussels. Participants at this roundtable debate are: Elmar Brok MEP, Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, General Jean-Paul Perruche, Former Director-General of the European Union Military Staff, Professor Alexander Mattelaer, Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), and Elena Lazarou, Policy Analyst, EPRS.

Registration
If you do not have an access badge to the European Parliament and are interested in attending the event, it is essential to register by Friday 23 September, using this link.

At the event the EPRS study on ‘The European Council and CSDP: Orientation and Implementation in the field of Crisis Management’ will be presented and discussed. This study assesses the planning, command and control of civilian and military CSDP missions and operations, progress made in developing civilian and military capabilities, particularly rapid response capabilities in the form of the EU Battlegroups, as well as challenges encountered during the force generation process, areas in which the European Council repeatedly called for further progress to be made.

 

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© mrallen / Fotolia

Challenges to security in Europe will take centre stage at the NATO summit in Warsaw on 8-9 July when its heads of state and government will discuss issues ranging from Russia’s conflict with Ukraine and its growing military assertiveness to turmoil across the Middle East and North Africa, and the future of the military alliance.

This note highlights a selection of commentaries, studies and reports by some of the major international think tanks and research institutes on European security and defence published in the run-up to the NATO summit. More reports on the subject can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking’ from in November 2015.

NATO summit

NATO Summit 2016: From reassurance to deterrence. What’s really at stake?
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, June 2016

The Warsaw summit and the return of Western nationalism
Danish Institute for International Studies, June 2016

Warsaw summit
Atlantic Council, June 2016

NATO Summit 2016: NATO must reaffirm its “open door” policy
Heritage Foundation, June 2016

National priorities for the NATO Warsaw summit
German Marshall Fund, May 2016

NATO defence planning between Wales and Warsaw: Politico-military challenges of a credible assurance against Russia
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, January 2016

What NATO for what threats? Warsaw and beyond
Istituto Affari Internazionali, December 2015

Preparing for NATO’s Warsaw summit: The challenges of adapting to strategic change
Danish Institute of International Studies, December 2015

Other studies

Restoring the power and purpose of the NATO alliance
Atlantic Council, June 2016

Time to restore conventional deterrence-by-denial
Egmont, June 2016

A new strategy: Implications for CSDP
Clingendael, June 2016

All not quiet on NATO’s eastern front
Carnegie Europe, June 2016

A threat-based strategy for NATO’s southern flank
Carnegie Europe, June 2016

Security in the Baltic Sea Region: Activation of risk potential
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, June 2016

The future of Transatlantic security
Rand, June 2016

Evaluating future U.S. Army force posture in Europe
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, June 2016

NATO must stop crowding Russia
Cato Institute, June 2016

European defence: From strategy to delivery
Clingendael, May 2016

Embedding NATO into the European Union Global Strategy: The missing link?
European, May 2016

Closing NATO’s Baltic gap
International Centre for Defence Studies, May 2016

Russia: A test for Transatlantic unity
Transatlantic Academy, German Marshall Fund, May 2016

A historic reminder, an ever-present dilemma? Assessing Brexit’s potential consequences for European security
European Policy Centre, May 2016

Russian “countermeasures” to NATO are coming
Brookings Institution, May 2016

EUISS yearbook of European security 2016
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2016

Envisioning European defence: Five futures
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2016

For a “new realism” in European defense: The five key challenges an EU defense strategy should address
German Marshall Fund, April 2016

A new Helsinki needed? What security model for Europe?
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, April 2016

The parliamentary dimension of defence cooperation
Clingendael, April 2016

European defence spending 2015: The force awakens
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2016

Do we need an EU army? Which way for the European security and defence cooperation
Mendel European Centre, March 2016

NATO’s guns point the wrong way
Friends of Europe, March 2016

NATO, the US and Baltic Sea security
Swedish Institute of International Affairs, February 2016

The annexation of Crimea: Lessons for European security
Fondation Robert Schuman, February 2016

Ensuring deterrence against Russia: The view from NATO’s front-line States
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, February 2016

Forces terrestres et réassurance: Quelles options pour l’Alliance?
Institut français des relations internationales, January 2016

The defence of Europe before European Defence: Returning to the Schuman method
Fondation Robert Schuman, January 2016

A stronger CSDP: Deepening defence cooperation
Clingendael, January 2016

Defence budgets and cooperation in Europe: Developments, trends and drivers
Istituto Affari Internazionali, Consortium of Think Tanks, January 2016

Reinforcing deterrence on NATO’s Eastern flank: Wargaming the defense of the Baltics
Rand, January 2016

NATO and European security: back to the roots?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, December 2015

The EU, Russia and the quest for a new European security bargain
Clingendael, December 2015

European strategy, European defence and the CSDP
Egmont, November 2015

L’Europe à la croisée des chemins: La politique de défense et de sécurité a besoin d’initiatives franco-allemandes
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2015

Un ressortissant étranger qui n’a pas été intercepte lors du franchissement irrégulier d’une frontière extérieur de ’espace Schengen, ne peut être mis en prison au seul motif de son entrée irrégulière sur le territoire d’un Etat membre. L’affaire est emblématique en raison des protagonistes. L’affaire au principal concerne une ressortissante ghanéenne qui a été interceptée par la police française au point d’entrée du tunnel sous la Manche en tentant de rejoindre le Royaume-Uni à partir de la Belgique.

A ce stade la Conclusion a été présentée par l’avocat généra Maciej Szpunar récemment, le 2 février, sur la base d’une analyse des dispositions du droit français qui prévoient que les ressortissants de pays tiers peuvent être punis d’un peine d’emprisonnement de un an s’ils sont entrés irrégulièrement sur le territoire français et ce à la lumière de la directive 2008/115/CE sur le retour des ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier.

La ressortissante ghanéenne ne disposait pas de ses propres documents d’identité et a été placée en rétention dans l’attente de sa réadmission en Belgique.

La directive européenne qui vient d’être citée ne s’oppose pas en principe à l’emprisonnement d’un migrant et la jurisprudence de la Cour s’est étoffée récemment avec des arrêts précisant dans quelles circonstances cela pouvait être fait ou encore en déterminant les critères permettant l’expulsion immédiate d’un étranger en séjour irrégulier.

L’avocat général a rappelé qu’il existait deux situations qui ouvraient la voie à la possibilité d’emprisonner un migrant en séjour irrégulier. Un Etat membre peut le faire lorsque la procédure de retour établie parla directive a été appliquée et que le ressortissant d’un pays tiers continue à séjourner irrégulièrement sur le territoire de Etat membre sans motif justifié et, deuxième possibilité, lorsque la procédure de retour a té appliquée et que la personne concernée entre de nouveau sur le territoire de l’Etat membre en violation d’une interdiction d’entrée.

L’Avocat général a ainsi déterminé que la directive devait s’appliquer, puisque la ressortissante ghanéenne se trouvait déjà dans l’espace Schengen et qu’elle faisait l’objet d’une procédure de réadmission vers la Belgique et qu’elle était en séjour irrégulier. Toutefois les conditions n’étaient pas remplies pour pouvoir l’emprisonner, car elle ne faisait pas l’objet d’une procédure de retour

Et n’était pas à nouveau entrée sur le territoire français en violation d’une interdiction d’entrée. Le seul motif qu’elle était en séjour irrégulier n’est donc pas suffisant pour l’emprisonner. Même migrant en situation irrégulière on ne peut vous emprisonner d’un claquement de doigt !

Mais comment s’y retrouver dans ce maquis inextricable de lois, règlements de jurisprudences et de situations personnelles, d’histoires individuelles diverses et variées ?

Pour en savoir plus :

     -. Texte d la demande de décision préjudicielle (le français étant la langue de procédure) https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=163052&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1159828

   -. Texte des conclusions https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=174070&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=817894

     -. Communiqué de presse de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016-02/cp160009fr.pdf

 

 

 

Classé dans:Conditions d'accueil des migrants et réfugiés, Dignité humaine, Droit à l'intégrité de la personne, Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté, DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Liberté de circulation des personnes, MIGRATIONS ET ASILE

The European Commission is dealing with challenges on another EU-U.S. data sharing deal: the Parliament legal service and MEPs argued that the so-called Umbrella Agreement, which will be brought into being with the signature of the Judicial Redress Act, does not comply with EU law.

On November 2015 the legal service of the European Parliament received a request from Mr. Claude Moraes, Chair of the committee of Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), regarding the “Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the protection of personal information relating to the prevention, investigation detection and prosecution of criminal offences” also known as the “ EU-U.S. umbrella Agreement”. This accord would put in place a data protection framework for personal data transferred for the purpose of prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offenses, including terrorism. The European Commission agreed on terms for the ‘Umbrella Agreement’ with the U.S. government on 8 September 2015.

The Commission made the Umbrella Agreement conditional on the U.S. Congress’ passing of the Judicial Redress Act, which will give EU citizens the right to challenge how their data is used in the U.S. courts. The Judicial Redress Act was passed by the U.S. Senate in February 2016.

At a meeting on 15 February, the MEPs of the committee of Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the EP and the Legal Service of the European Parliament presented their opinion on the relationship between the Umbrella agreement and Union law, both as regards its compatibility with primary and secondary European law.

To give his advice the Legal Service was supposed to answer three questions regarding the umbrella agreement, first about the legal nature of the accord and its relation with secondary EU legislation, second whether it could be considered as an adequacy decision, and third regarding the legal status of person who are not EU citizens and whether they are entitled to protection.

Concerning the first question the Legal Service answered that the agreement once properly concluded will be an international accord within the meaning of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), so it will have primacy over secondary legislation such as on the future data protection package. As a consequence, it is important to specify, that international agreements cannot have primacy over secondary EU law if they are in any way incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Regarding the second matter, on whether the agreement will constitute an adequacy decision or not, Dominique Moore, the rapporteur of the Legal Service, stated that the agreement does not represent a classic form of adequacy decision, that it falls outside the scope of secondary legislation and that, being its effects already clear, they do not require further adequacy decision. He also explained, on a further comment, that the European Court of Justice has limited jurisdiction over international agreements, while enjoys full powers in the review and eventual annulment or declaration of invalidity of a Commission position.

On the third question Mr. Moore stated that under EU law and in particular under both article 8 of the charter and article 16 of the TFEU “everyone has the right to the protection of personal data”.

Thus, under EU primary law , the right to protection of personal data is granted to everyone and it is not restricted on the basis of residence or citizenship or any other criteria. The situation under the EU-U.S. umbrella agreement, would instead be different. Specifically, as for regards agreement itself, it is important to note that Article 19, labeled « Judicial Redress », provides that certain limited rights of judicial redress shall be made available, subject to certain conditions, only to « any of a Party »

Accordingly, the EU-U.S. Umbrella agreement does not provide that the U.S. will afford rights of judicial redress to natural persons, falling within the scope of EU law, other than EU citizens. This then opens a significant « gap » in the protection of the personal data of individuals covered by EU law which applies to « everyone », when compared with the limited obligations imposed on the U.S. by the EU-U.S. Umbrella agreement .That is why in the opinion of the Legal Service, the proposed agreement would not be compatible with the charter.

Then Mr. Francisco J. Morillo, Deputy Director- General in the DG JUST, took the floor during the LIBE meeting and explained that, in the opinion of the Commission, the agreement will constitute a major success for EU. The agreement establishes indeed a framework that will apply to every transfer in the law enforcement sector made on the basis of future or existing accords or national law.

In addition, it will improve the situation of all EU data subjects except for judicial address avenues, regardless of the nationality or place of residence of the data subject. Furthermore he explained that the Umbrella agreement is an improvement compared to the present situation. The judicial redress act will allow EU citizens to benefit from redress: refusal to grant access to personal data, change data and disclosure to data. The effectiveness will be the core issue. The judicial redress act extends avenues to EU citizens. Nevertheless, this is not the only route of judicial redress.

However Mr. Morillo also specified that the agreement does not grant adequacy to the U.S. and he added it was never the intention of the Commission to make an adequacy finding. Article 5.3 of the draft version of the Umbrella Agreement does not provide a blanket authorization but a presumption of compliance. Paragraph 2 of article 5 clarifies that. The presumption operates on a case by case basis. It is an instrument to complement our legal basis for transfer. It is very different from an adequacy decision, he concluded.

Afterwards Mr. Giovanni Buttarelli, European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) took the floor, and welcomed the efforts of the European Commission to reach, for the first time, a general agreement with the U.S. Nevertheless he emphasized that the crucial challenge was to ensure full compatibility of the agreement with the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular with Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter and Article 16 TFEU. Thus he suggested three essential improvements in order to guarantee the compliance of the accord with the Charter and with Article 16 of the Treaty.

First of all, he said that all the safeguards should apply to all individuals in the EU, not only to EU nationals, because there are specific provisions in the Agreement that regard all individuals – such as the rights to access, rectification and administrative redress. But there are two essential provisions that appear to be limited to citizens of the two parties to the Agreement: namely, the general non-discrimination obligation in Article 4 and the right to judicial redress in Article 19. Mr. Buttarelli added that on these points the EDPS could not afford any ambiguity.

Secondly, Mr. Buttarelli stated that the second EDPS recommendation was to ensure that judicial redress provisions were effective – again within the meaning of the Charter.

Finally, the third EDPS recommendation dealt with transfers of sensitive data. As Buttarelli underlined “I am afraid that Article 13(2) of the Agreement seems to open the possibility of bulk transfers of sensitive data: it refers to the possibility of transfers of personal information « other than in relation to specific cases ». Such transfers would not necessarily mean transfers in bulk, but this possibility cannot be excluded”.

Afterwards many MEP’s casted serious doubts on the transatlantic agreement. Indeed, several MEP’s denounced the agreement for not safeguarding the rights of all EU residents, and contested Mr. Morillo assertion that the text would not lead to an adequacy decision.

Thus, how to reach an agreement on the accord is still not clear.

However, in the meanwhile, on Wednesday 24 February, the American President, Barack Obama signed the Judicial Redress Act, which was adopted by the American Senate in early February and on the occasion of the signing, Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová said:

“I welcome the signature of the Judicial Redress Act by President Obama today. This new law is a historic achievement in our efforts to restore trust in transatlantic data flows. The Judicial Redress Act will ensure that all EU citizens have the right to enforce data protection rights in U.S. courts, as called for in President Juncker’s political guidelines. U.S. citizens already enjoy this right in Europe. The entry into force of the Judicial Redress Act will pave the way for the signature of the EU-U.S. Data Protection Umbrella Agreement. This agreement will guarantee a high level of protection of all personal data, regardless of nationality, when transferred across the Atlantic for law enforcement purposes. It will strengthen privacy, while ensuring legal certainty for transatlantic data exchanges between police and criminal justice authorities. This is crucial to keep Europeans safe through efficient and robust cooperation between the EU and the U.S. in the fight against crime and terrorism. The signature of the Judicial Redress Act by President Obama is a historic achievement in our efforts to restore trust in transatlantic data flows, paving the way to the signature of the EU-U.S. Data Protection Umbrella Agreement.”

Elena Dal Monte

For Further Information:

Image Source:

https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs – meeting 15/02/2016 (PM)

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160209IPR13553/Committee-on-Civil-Liberties-Justice-and-Home-Affairs

European Commission – Statement

https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-401_en.htm

Speech of Giovanni Buttarelli on the EU-U.S. Umbrella Agreement given at Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE)

https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/Publications/Speeches/2016/16-02-15_Umbrella_Agreement_LIBE_EN.pdf

Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the protection of personal information relating to the prevention, investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offences

https://statewatch.org/news/2015/sep/eu-us-umbrella-agreement-full-text.pdf

 

Classé dans:DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Protection de la vie privée et des données personnelles

On the occasion of International Women’s day, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality organised, on 3 March 2016, an inter-parliamentary committee in collaboration with the Employment, Civil Liberties and Budget Committees and the Human Rights Subcommittee. This year the focus is on the issue of women refugees and asylum seekers in the EU. This meeting brought together MEPs, representatives of national parliaments of 24 member states, candidate countries and Norway, and some delegates of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and the European Commission, amongst the others. The debates mainly focused on combating violence against women refugees and asylum seekers, their situation in healthcare, and measures for promoting their integration. The latter point will be better analysed in a further article, while here, the focus is on the topic in general terms, presenting violence experienced by women and the almost non-existent health care provided to them in their trip to and across Europe.

On February, UNICEF has raised the alarm about the fact that “for the first time since the beginning of the refugee and migrant crisis in Europe, there are more children and women on the move than adult males.” Children and women now make up nearly 60% of refugees and migrants, against 27% of the end of June last year. Refugee and migrant women and girls are among those particularly at risk and require additional protection measures, as highlighted by the report issued by UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC).

In fact, women are among the most vulnerable refugees. They are often the victims of violence and discrimination in their own countries, including forced marriage, rape, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, and “honour crimes”. However, on their journeys to and through the EU, they can again become victims of trafficking, prostitution and sexual exploitation.

In his opening speech at the European Parliament (EP) International Women’s day, Martin Schulz, President of the EP, expressed his strong interest in this gender issue, underling that the EU and its Members have to commit themselves to this matter. He also underlined that “refugee crisis” has not an easy solutions nevertheless, rule of law and solidarity, principles that have been put in peril during the last months, are strong bases to build on a possible solution.

Afterwards, several activists and MEPs took the floor at the conference. The words of Nawal Soufi, a human rights activist, thundered in the room presenting the awful reality that migrants face every day. She started her speech showing two bottles of water and a pair of tights: the hand-made life jacket that people, with no money left, use to try to save their life at sea. She talked about a “red Mediterranean sea”, coloured by thousands of silent deaths; the world looks at it and stays silent: “we continue to pretend that it is all nothing”.

This activist, an Italian 27-year-old girl of Moroccan origins, talked about her own trip from a gender perspective: she travelled as a refugee under false identity from Syria to Europe. She experienced violence twice: hit with baton by the border police of two EU Member States. “The travel frequently becomes untenable; people are constantly under pressure and often treated in an inhumane and degrading manner first by smugglers, and then by police authorities.” Nawal Soufi continued saying that she is not worried about refugees in Europe, because one day they will come back home. However, she is really concerned about Europe and its conscience. Thus, she called on the EU to open humanitarian corridors making Europe “permeable” in a safe and legal way.

All refugees face great hardship but women and girls are among the most vulnerable of those travelling to the EU in search of protection from war, human rights abuses and deprivation. Because of their gender, they are often the victims of violence and discrimination. As recalled by Susana Amador, Portuguese representative of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms Guarantees: women refugees are victims twice, as refugees firstly and then for gender-based persecution.

Women and girls are confronted to violence that they have been fleeing from in their home country and violence on the journey, very often from smugglers and traffickers and unfortunately from other refugees. It is a violent situation in itself. Women are vulnerable, particularly if they are on their own. Statistics show that there are now more women coming. The reason could be that men are sent on ahead and then women and children do come later.

UNHCR underlined “single women travelling alone or with children, pregnant and lactating women, adolescent girls (…) elderly women and especially persons with disabilities are among those who are particularly at risk”. In fact, as reported by the COFACE-Disability organisation, there are hundreds of disabled women refugees left behind with no access to humanitarian aid. Moreover, there are dozens and dozens of reports telling how women, and especially women with disability, are often exposed to sexual violence and psychological assault.

Rachael Reilly, representative of the Women’s Refugee Commission, exposed one of this report at the conference. She presented different cases experienced by some women interviewed. A Sub-Saharan woman, for instance, told that in Greece she was asked to have sex for obtaining a passport. Rachael Reilly added that, in emergency camps along the Balkan route, women are afraid of being subject to violence: there are no separates toilets, showers and, sleeping and safe places for women. Some migrants’ women told that they stopped eating and drinking not to go to the toilet. Women are in danger because there are thousands of people mixed up with no organisation. However, violence is even experienced in reception centres. As underlined by Mina Jaf, a Belgian social worker, a pregnant Nigerian woman, living in Brussels, was sexually abused by an operator of her reception centre.

These points are reiterated in the joint report conducted by UNHCR, UNFPA and WRC which underlines that, “despite attempts by UNHCR and partners to ensure well-lit and gender segregated reception facilities and shelter, many lack private, safe water, sanitation and health facilities and sleeping areas for women and children, exposing them to potential or further sexual and gender-based violence risks.”

Thus, the study comes up with a set of recommendations for governments and EU agencies to fight against this sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV):

• establish a coordinated response system within and across borders that protects women and girls;
• acknowledge the protection risks and put personnel and procedures in place specifically to prevent, identify, and respond to SGBV;
• ensure response to SGBV that recognizes women will not stop to report SGBV or access services; and
• provide legal pathways to protection, especially for women, children and SGBV survivors, including effective family reunification and prioritization of these refugees with specific needs in relocation and resettlement opportunities.

As regard to gender healthcare, the debate at the Parliamentary International Women’s day underlined that woman’s category is the most exposed during the trip. Directives for asylum seekers at national level envisage that once recognised as refugees, women have the same rights to receive healthcare as national citizens. The problem is that sometimes legislation remains on paper. In emergency centres, there is a lack of health facilities and most of the time police officers, doctors and interpreters are males: this represents an obstacle for women.

Moreover, due to the high rate of pregnant women, there is the need of pre and post-natal services, women care centres and safe spaces to leave children while their mothers receive medical care and assistance. Furthermore, Daniela Aiuto, Italian MEP, highlighted that the language barrier is a great obstacle: there is a lack of linguistic support and limits in the administrative structure. Thus, women often struggle to adequately explain their symptoms during the medical interview. Fortunately, she concluded, this gap is often fill in by NGOs and volunteers, but this is not enough. “The EU is called directly into play, more than ever before.”

Mary Honeyball, a UK member of the S&D group, underlined that a concrete step towards could be taken rising awareness. “People need to know that this is going on. This kind of pressure can lead to improvements.” The English MEP has drafted an own-initiative report on women refugees, highlighting the need for gender-sensitive measures as part of broader reforms on EU migration and asylum policies.

According to this report, once women are accepted in an EU country, their special needs are often not fully addressed throughout the asylum process, including the fact that they are often travelling with young children. “We need to make sure that the centres where they arrive are run properly”. Thus, she called for new European measures that could grant women access to proper legal advice or the right to request female interviewers and interpreters. Reception centres should include separate sleeping and sanitation facilities for women as well as trauma counselling and appropriate health services. She even highlighted that having been the victim of violence due to being a woman should be considered a valid reason for seeking asylum in the European Union.

The women’s rights committee adopted the non-legislative report of Mary Honeyball on last 28th January. All MEPs will debate and vote on the report tomorrow, on 8th March, a symbolic date to underline another time the EU new commitment on this gender issue.

On 8th March 2016, the International Women’s Day allows us to give voice to the silence of women migrants. It is a renewed opportunity to express our indignation about their situation. Anyway, this day allows us to stand together with all those women who dare to speak up, sometimes at their life’s risk, against the violence suffered at our borders and at our doors.

Let us raise our voice hoping that this can turn into real actions and decisions…and in 365 “women’s days” per year.

Adele Cornaglia

For further information:

• International Women’s day, European Parliament: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/top-stories/20160226TST16212/International-Women’s-Day-2016
• More children and women seek safety in Europe, UNICEF: https://www.unicef.org/media/media_90000.html
• Nawal Soufi, the girl that save migrants at sea with her mobile phone, LINKIESTA: https://www.linkiesta.it/it/article/2015/12/04/nawal-la-ragazza-che-salva-i-profughi-in-mare-con-il-suo-cellulare/28459/
• Refugee women on the move in Europe are at risk, says UN, UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.org/569fb22b6.html

 

Classé dans:Conditions d'accueil des migrants et réfugiés, Dignité humaine, Droit à la santé, Droits de l'enfant, DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Egalité entre hommes et femmes, MIGRATIONS ET ASILE, Non-discrimination

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), an NGO based in London, documented that there were 260,758 deaths between March 2011, the date of the beginning of the Syrian civil war, and December 2015. One third of victims were civilians, while the remaining parts were soldiers. On September 2013, after the use of chemical weapons in Damascus, the Syrian crisis became international: the United States and the European Union accused Bashar al-Assad’s government of conducting this illegal operation. However, Russia and Iran defended the Syrian government and accused rebels. In recent years the public opinion has asked which is the role played by the European Union in this conflict, especially after the military intervention in the Syrian territory by the American and Russian forces. This article, firstly, wants to highlight the EU’s identity path to understand which kind of actor Europe is nowadays. Secondly, we will focus the attention on the Union’s position regarding the situation in Syria. Finally, it will be analysed the Federica Mogherini’s statements about the ceasefire agreement between the US and Russia on the Syrian territory.

1.The European evolution.

The current European Union’s identity is the result of a process that began at the end of the II World War. The evolution of the Union status as an international actor has followed five phases each corresponds to a specific historical period. Indeed, following the scheme presented by Joachim Koops in his book «The European Union as integrative power?», the European phases are:

• Economic
• Civilian
• Military
• Legislative
• Civilian power with teeth

The concept of creating an economic power was the dominant idea between the late 1950s and the early 1970s As a result, the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957 established the European Economic Community (EEC) and set the stages and parameters for a common commercial policy and thereby for the EEC’s development into an international economic power. According to Koops, the slow delegitimization of brute force and military power in international relations during that particular period facilitated the EEC to acquire importance as an economic power. In his opinion, the African decolonization process provided with the EEC an opportunity for crafting a continuing privileged relationship with former colonies.

In 1970, with the European Political Cooperation (EPC), the European community (EC) leaders increasingly attempted to convert its role into international political power. François Duchêne, a policy analyst, was the first who described the EC as a distinct actor in international affairs. An international subject able to promote Civilian Power: springing the civil and democratic standards in the world, using its economic power. In 1973, with the «Declaration on European identity» was formulated and the foreign ministers of the nine member states stated that it was necessary to extend the democratic principles on which the EC was based, speaking with one voice. In 1974, the UN General Assembly gave the EC a permanent observer’s status, and this helped the Community to become an international political player. During the early 1980’s, the increasing Cold War tensions, led to a resurgence of the military issues at the international level. A change in the international context led the EC to reconsider its military power.

The lack of a significant contribution by the EC during the US-led Gulf War against Iraq in 1991 and the EC’s collective failure to respond effectively to the Bosnian War (1992-1995) underlined the fact that what George Bush’s (senior), rather hyperbolically, declared post-Cold War ‘new world order’ was being shaped without much of an EC input. Although the Maastricht Treaty, signed in 1992, was meant to provide the newly created European Union with a more institutionalized, visible, and resolute foreign policy system, the expectations generated by this Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) mechanism could not be matched by its capabilities. After the birth of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) at the Helsinki and Cologne EU Council summits in 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam (in force since 1999) established the office of a High Representative/Secretary General for the CFSP, while the Treaty of Nice (signed in 2001 and in force since 2003) created several new ESDP institutions.

The development of the EU towards a potential military power needs to be viewed in the international security context of the 1990s.

The alleged transformative effects of EU enlargement have prompted policy-makers and academic commentators to conceptualize the EU as a transformative and ‘structural diplomatic power’. The conceptualization of the EU as a normative power can be seen as the boldest variation of the civilian power notion by arguing that not only is the EU constructed on a normative basis, but importantly that this predisposes it to act in a normative way in world politics.

Since 2003, experts defined the UE as a civilian power with teeth. The Berlin Plus agreement established the incorporation within NATO’s defence planning of the military needs and capabilities, and the exchange of classified information under reciprocal security protection rules. In this sense the EU developed its (evolved as an international actor and reconsidered the) military dimension, but at the same time it increased institutionalisation and cooperation with others international organisations (such us the UN). It began also a comprehensive approach. The EU approach to comprehensive security is intimately linked to multilateralism, and to the promotion of security in close partnerships with other states and international organisations.

The conceptual evolution of the European Union shows that it is the result of a path started in the ‘50s, and that is still on ongoing process. Its specificity lies in the fact that the EU is not an exclusive actor, because it could contain several features that make it a power in economic, civil, military, and normative terms. In other words, focusing on foreign policy, to use a classic definition, the “EU is Mars utilising Venus means”.

2. What strategy in Syria according to the Council ?

In 2011, the EU responded to the unacceptable violence used by the military and security forces against peaceful demonstrators. The EU suspended its cooperation with the Syrian Government under the European Neighbourhood Policy and gradually extended restrictive measures against the Syrian Government. From the very outset, the EU has condemned human rights violations in Syria in strongest terms. The EU is a full member and active participant in the International Syria Support Group. It fully supports the UN-led process, notably the efforts of the UN Special Envoy for Syria. According to the European external action service, only a Syrian-led political process leading to a peaceful and inclusive transition, based on the principles of the Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012 and in line with relevant UN Security Council resolutions 2254 (2015), will bring back stability to Syria. In March 2015, the Foreign Affairs Council adopted a comprehensive EU regional strategy for Syria, Iraq and the Da’esh threat . In this conclusion the EU condemned unreservedly the indiscriminate attacks, atrocities, killings and abuses of human rights which are perpetrated by ISIL/Da’esh and other terrorist groups. The EU’s aim was both to provide humanitarian aid, and a political solution. The main objective was to find a common solution between the central government and the moderate opposition. For this reason the EU and its Member States mobilised more than € 3.2 billion for relief and recovery assistance to those affected by the conflict inside Syria and refugees and host communities. This means that EU decided to use a humanitarian, economic, and political approach in order Syrian crisis.

The Russian airstrikes and the advancement of terrorist groups worsted both the humanitarian condition inside Syrian’s territory, and the political situation at the international level. For this reason, during the Foreign Affairs Council of 12 October 2015, the EU stated its position underlining the importance to find a political solution, under the UN auspices. This time the EU condemned each type of military action, because the US and Russian’s interventions aggravated the internal Syrian crisis. At the same time, the EU decided to intensify humanitarian diplomacy and sought ways to improve access and protection as well as to promote humanitarian principles.

In conclusion, the European approach in Syria has been based on three fundamental points: the political support (typical of a normative power), humanitarian aid (typical of a civilian power), and budgetary support (typical of an economic power). However, it seems necessary to highlight that the EU supported the efforts of the Global Coalition to contrast Da’esh in Syria and Iraq. As noted by UN Security Council Resolution 2170 (August 2014), “terrorism can only be defeated by a sustained and comprehensive approach involving the active participation and collaboration of all States […] which is why our first priority is to encourage others to join in this important endeavour”. This Coalition, formed by the US President Barack Obama, is based on five core lines: providing military support to international partners; impeding the flow of foreign fighters; stopping ISIL’s financing and funding; addressing humanitarian crises in the region and exposing ISIL’s true nature. In the end, even if an offensive approach in Syria has not been supported by the EU in itself, the EU is nevertheless part of the Coalition, whose initiative main goal is indeed a military order.

3. The European statements after the cease-fire.

On 22 February 2015, the US and Russia have agreed on a draft agreement calling for the cessation of hostilities in Syria starting from Saturday 27th February. The points of the agreement are the following:

• The draft mentions the ceasefire between the regime and the rebel groups. As a consequence, the Truce excludes the operations against the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.
• The truce is valid only for the rebels who will accept the ceasefire no later than noon on Friday 26th February.
• Definition of « terrorist groups »: The draft does not insert two rebel groups as a terrorist organization, as requested by Moscow. There are the Ahrar al-Shaam (Free of greater Syria) and Jund al-Islam (Army of Islam), both Salafist organizations linked to Turkey and Saudi Arabia (both allies of the US).
• The institution of a Working Group to indicate areas that will be bombed, or those controlled by the Islamic State or the Al-Nusra Front.

On 26 February, about a hundred troops of Syrian rebels announced that would respect the ceasefire. The Free Syrian Army factions and the opposition agreed to respect a temporary truce. Upon hearing the news, the ministers of Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Malta and Cyprus reiterated that the solution to the Syrian crisis couldn’t be military, and asked to immediately stop attacks on civilians and to grant access to humanitarian aid. Moreover, respect for the Syria’s sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the country were the main EU claims. In the concrete case, the policy adopted during the Syria’s crisis corresponds to the different characteristics of the European Union. During the Foreign Affairs (AFET) session of February 23, Federica Mogherini, the EU High Representative, gave a speech on the cease-fire and her approach confirms the role of the EU civilian power with teeth.

During the debate, in response to questions from MPs on the true role of the EU in the civil war, the HR argued that the EU’s task has been founded and will be based on two objectives: the humanitarian aid and the political solution. Regarding the humanitarian approach, Mogherini said that 114 humanitarian aid trucks had reached 83,000 people, and that the EU and its member states had pledged two thirds of all humanitarian aid. Concerning the political process, she said it was important to keep to agreements, because the political transition should include revising the Syrian Constitution and elections to be held within 18 months.

The European Union, even after international pressure, has consistently refused to undertake a military operation in Syria. The lack of an intervention is not derived from legitimacy or alliances questions. The question sinks into the very roots of the evolution of the European Union, as the military aspect is only one of the components of European identity. The European Union prefers to mobilize political, normative and economic means before considering a military operation. The foreign policy of defects doesn’t stem only from structural issues related primarily to the lack of a European army, but derive from the historical path that has highlighted the evolution. A military intervention has never been put on the European agenda, especially after the US and Russia interventions. The EU wants a political and negotiated solution: siding at the military level for one of the two sides would lead to the escalation of the fighting. In conclusion, foreign policy and defense identity is linked to the path taken after the end of World War II. The EU approach to comprehensive security is intimately linked to multilateralism, and to the promotion of security in close partnerships with the other states and international organisations.

Maria Elena Argano 

For further information:

• KOOPS, Joachim Alexander, “What Kind of Actor, What Kind of Power? Effective Multilateralism and the EU as an Integrative Power”, in The European Union as integrative power?, Brussels University Press, 2011, pp. 147 – 227.
• European External Action Service Site, The EU’s relations with Syria: https://eeas.europa.eu/syria/
• European Council Site, Council conclusions on the EU regional strategy for Syria and Iraq as well as the ISIL/Da’esh threat: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/03/16-council-conclusions-eu-regional-strategy-for-syria-and-iraq-as-well-as-the-isil-daesh-threat/
• European Council site, Conclusion du Conseil sur la Syrie: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/fr/press/press-releases/2015/10/12-fac-conclusions-syria/
• U.S. Departement of State, The global coalition to counter ISIL: https://www.state.gov/s/seci/
• UN Council Resolution 2170: https://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11520.doc.htm
• La Repubblica, Siria, accordo USA-Russia su cessate il fuoco. Possibile stop alle ostilità dal 27 febbraio:https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2016/02/22/news/siria_accordo_usa-russia_cessate_il_fuoco-133989481/
• Rai News, Siria attesa per la tregua: https://www.rainews.it/dl/rainews/articoli/Siria-oggi-approvazione-accordo-Usa-Russia-tregua-7a37f165-5379-45a4-882b-d42ef6b9266d.html?refresh_ce
• EEAS Site, Mogherini discusses Syria, migration with national MPs: https://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/2016/230216_mogherini_afet_en.htm

 

Classé dans:Lutte contre le terrorisme et la radicalisation, RELATIONS EXTERIEURES

Written by Suzana Elena Anghel, Stanislas de Finance, Ralf Drachenberg

This 25-26 June 2015 summit witnessed an intense debate. While the agenda originally covered Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the digital single market and the European Semester, in addition to a presentation from David Cameron, United Kingdom Prime Minister to outline his vision on renegotiating his country’s relationship with the EU, the summit became a crisis Council. Many discussions again focused on the situation in the Mediterranean, with several lively exchanges. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel described the issue as the ‘biggest challenge’ Europe had faced during her time in office.

The Council’s conclusions nevertheless managed to address all issues on the agenda. The Heads of State or Government concentrated on three key dimensions of the European Commission’s agenda on migration: the relocation/resettlement of migrants; their return/readmission/reintegration; and cooperation with countries of both origin and transit. Clear differences in opinion persisted on the voluntary or mandatory nature of the relocation scheme, but agreement was reached on ‘the temporary and exceptional relocation, over two years, from the frontline Member States: Italy and Greece, to other Member States of 40 000 persons in clear need of international protection’.

Although the debate on CSDP fell short of its original ambition, the Council conclusions included a statement that the European Council ‘will keep security and defence policy on its regular agenda’, thereby clearly underlining the future importance of CSDP.

United Kingdom Prime Minister, David Cameron’s presentation of his vision on renegotiation of the UK’s relationship with the EU, did not outline any specific details, however, it provided an impetus for European level discussions on this issue, with Council President Donald Tusk seeing it as ‘the first step in a longer process that will also end at the European Council’. This issue is certain to reappear on the agenda for the Council meeting in December 2015.

The significantly shortened debate on the Commission communication on a Digital Single Market strategy for Europe, nevertheless led to Council conclusions calling for the rapid adoption of the Telecommunications Single Market Regulation, the Directive on Network and Information Security, and the Data Protection package. Heads of State or Government also stressed that action must be taken on key components of the Commission communication, such as eliminating mobile roaming charges. On this issue, on 30 June 2015, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, reached agreement to end roaming surcharges by 15 June 2017.

The EPRS publishes briefings on the European Council before summits, and European Council outcome briefings (next to be issued just after the European Council of 15-16 October 2015).

Read this Briefing on Outcome of the 25-26 June European Council in PDF

Written by Suzana Elena Anghel Gavrilescu and Ralf Drachenberg

The June European Council has a comprehensive list of topics to discuss, including the situation in the Mediterranean, the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), fighting terrorism, economic governance aspects, and the digital agenda. In addition, a presentation by the British Prime Minister on the future role of the United Kingdom is on the agenda.

Migration is the main topic of this June European Council. Heads of State or Government will discuss the recently published European Agenda for Migration and take stock of the progress made since the extraordinary European Council meeting on migration in April 2015. The European Council will discuss the European Commission’s proposal for a temporary relocation mechanism, which envisages relocating 40 000 persons from Italy and Greece to other Member States.

The European Council should also agree on a new CSDP roadmap and set the objectives for capabilities development, fostering the defence industry and the defence market, and strengthening relations with international organisations (i.e. the UN, NATO, the African Union). The Heads of State or Government will decide on a timeline for the completion of the strategic review process, most probably by June 2016. Within the broader context of discussing security aspects, the European Council will also examine the implementation of the informal February 2015 European Council‘s decisions on the fight against terrorism. 

During discussions on the 2015 European Semester the European Council endorse the Country Specific Recommendations that Member States should implement to ensure sound public finances and to make their economies more competitive. Whilst on the topic of better economic governance in the euro area, the ‘Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union’ report is expected to be presented to the Heads of State or Government.

The European Commission’s recent Digital Single Market strategy for Europe will be tabled for examination, and the European Council will most likely call for a rapid adoption of pending legislation in this field, such as the European Single Market for Electronic Communications, the Directive on Network and Information Security and the proposal for a Regulation on Data Protection.

This European Council meeting will also hear United Kingdom Prime Minister, David Cameron outline his vision for renegotiating his country’s relationship with the EU.

Read the complete ‘Outlook for the European Council of 25 – 26 June 2015‘ in PDF.

Written by Marcin Grajewski

The recent interview by Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, in which he advocated ‘a joint EU army’ as a means to strengthen European foreign policy and ‘allow Europe to take on responsibility in the world’ has revived an on-going debate in think-tank and academic circles about how to maximise the effectiveness of existing national and Europe-wide efforts in the field of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The European Council adopted an extensive set of conclusions on the subject in December 2013.

This note highlights a selection of recent studies, reports and commentaries by some of the major international think tanks and research institutes that analyse issues surrounding the development of CSDP.

Commentaries © TebNad / Shutterstock

Federalist rhetoric or political tactics? The what, where, who, when and why of Juncker’s call for a common European army  European Policy Centre (EPC), March 12, 2015

Does the EU need its own army?  Carnegie Europe, March 11, 2015

The illusion of an independent EU army  Carnegie Europe, March 10, 2015

If not now, when? The Nordic EU battle-group

European Union Institute for Security Studies (ISS), February 17, 2015

The EU and the UN: together for peace

European Union Institute for Security Studies, December 18, 2014

Europe’s global power potential: locked in the EU28’s defence silos  Friends of Europe, December 4, 2014

2014: a centenary and a discovery  Egmont, December 2014

Analyses

The EU neighbourhood in shambles  Bertelsmann Stiftung, March 3, 2015

More Union in European defence  Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), February 26, 2015

European Defence Trends  Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), January 6, 2015

Report: EU as a security provider  Clingendael, December 18, 2014

Why Europe must stop outsourcing its security

European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), December 15, 2014

Peacemaking: Can the EU meet expectations?  Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, December, 2014

Europe’s changing security landscape: What role will the EU play in security and defence?

Finnish Institute of International Affairs, December 12, 2014

Actors in the European defence policy area: roles and developments

Istituto Affari Internazionali, November 24, 2014

Constructing the defence dimension of the EU

International Security Information Service Europe, June, 2014

Security and defence: an issue for the European citizen?

Trans European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA), March, 2014

Livre blanc français de la défense 2013 : lignes de forces autour de la sécurité-défense européenne

L’Institut royal supérieur de défense, December, 2013

Why do Europeans need armed forces?  Fride, November, 2013

 Related publications

Why peacekeeping matters to Europe  Friends of Europe, March 11, 2015

The Wales pledge revisited: A preliminary analysis of 2015 budget decisions in NATO member states

European Leadership Network, February, 2015

In the belly of the beast: A European view on sending arms to Ukraine

Brookings Institution, February 4, 2015

Challenges for European Foreign Policy in 2015: How others deal with disorder  Fride, January 12, 2015

A new European security order: The Ukraine crisis and the missing post-Cold War bargain

Fondation pour la Recherche Strategique, December 8, 2014

Integrating EU defence and migration policies in the Mediterranean  Fride, November, 2014

EP publication

The Cost of Non-Europe in Common Security and Defence Policy

European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), European Added Value Unit, June 2013

Read this At a glance on Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) in PDF

The European Union (EU) must not only promote the observance of human rights by other international actors, but also respect them itself in the course of all its actions abroad. However, the applicability of international human rights instruments to EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operations is problematic since the EU itself, as opposed to its Member States, is not party to these instruments. International human rights apply to EU-led missions as part of customary international law.

© EUFOR Tchad/RCA

These human rights obligations are enforced through specific accountability mechanisms. The EU is also responsible for human rights violations committed by private military and security services when fulfilling duties assigned by the EU.

The envisaged accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights raises questions as to the attribution of acts during CSDP operations to theMemberStates and EU. The European Court of Human Rights’ case law on the extra-territorial application of the Convention gives guidance as to its future relevance for EU missions abroad.

Click here for the whole briefing

© apfelweile / Fotolia.com6 language versions available in PDF format

Die maritimen Aspekte der GSVP der EU

La dimensión marítima de la PCSD de la UE

La dimension maritime de la PSDC

La dimensione marittima della PSDC dell’UE

Wymiar morski unijnej WPBiO

The maritime dimension of the EU’s CSDP

As piracy off Africa has become a global security issue, the need for the European Union (EU) to protect its interests at sea through a maritime dimension to its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) has also been recognised.

Importance of the sea for the EU

With a coastline of 70 000 kilometres and with 90% of its external trade transported by sea, the EU has vital maritime interests: security of global maritime flows, safety of maritime transport, fish, energy resources etc. Protecting the world’s maritime routes and lines of communication is an essential dimension of the EU’s security. The EU requires to develop an active approach to the varied challenges and threats to maritime security (terrorism, transnational crime, piracy, environmental degradation, depletion of marine resources etc.) in its neighbourhood and other zones.

EU’s role in maritime security

Although no EU maritime strategy as such exists, a maritime dimension has developed across EU policy areas and through EU agencies, e.g. fisheries, marine pollution, maritime transport, maritime surveillance, and energy security, as well as maritime power projection through CSDP. The Integrated Mari­time Policy for the EU (2007) aimed at uniting the various approaches, but its underlying economic rationale left little room for security issues. Equally, neither the European Security Strategy (2003) nor its Implementation Report (2008) directly addresses maritime security.

Despite some initiatives taken under the CSDP, there are still calls for a maritime dimension to CSDP strategy. In particular, the EU should actively seek to safeguard key trade routes (“Suez to Shanghai”, the Arctic) and prevent state or non-state actors from disrupting them.

The surge in African piracy prompted the launch in 2008 of the EU’s first CSDP naval operation, EUNAVFOR-Atalanta, with the objective of combating piracy off the coast of Somalia and protecting UN food aid deliveries to the country. Two further CSDP missions (EUCAP Nestor – improving regional maritime capacities – and the EU Training Mission (EUTM) Somalia – to train Somali security forces) – are part of a broader EU approach, based on the EU Strategic Framework for the Horn of Africa (2011). Although Operation Atalanta enhanced the credibility of EU CSDP, the Somali case proves that a combination of threats (weak governance, piracy, illegal fishing, under-development) requires complex policies and tools.

Towards a Maritime Security Strategy

In this context, academics have called for an EU Maritime Security Strategy (EUMSS). This should take a holistic approach, integrating civil and military aspects, and state the EU’s maritime strategic objectives and the means to implement them, while avoiding duplication of capabilities at EU level. Cooperation with other maritime forces (NATO, the United States, China, Russia etc.) also needs to be tackled.

In 2010, EU Foreign Ministers launched the process of preparing “options for the possible elaboration of a security strategy for the global maritime domain.” The Commission and the European External Action Service are expected to present a formal proposal for the December 2013 European Council meeting, dedicated to CSDP matters.

European Parliament

The EP has adopted several resolutions addressing maritime security. The latest report on the Maritime dimension of the Common Security and Defence Policy (rapporteur Ana Gomes, S&D, Portugal) states the importance of global maritime flows and calls for an EUMSS combining approaches to maritime safety and maritime security, and considering the “nexus between human security, state governance and human development”. It also stresses the need for improved exchange of information and intelligence on maritime risks and threats between EU Member States, and proposes the creation of EU coastguards.