You are on page 1of 7

1

AMERICAN MILITARY UNIVERSITY

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

CAPSTONE PROJECT

IRLS699 DAVID J. MILLER INSTRUCTOR: STEPHEN BACH, PHD

MAY 19, 2013

2

Research Proposal Various nations have different ways of structuring their security policies. Current security measures, such as the European Union’s (EU) sanctioning of Syria, have done little to actually increase security, and EU officials have admitted that their current security measures are counterproductive in helping non-EU government functions (Portela 2012, 155). Part of the reason for this is that there is a dysfunction concerning the shaping of security policy within the EU, in which there are multiple mechanisms of government, leading to a lack of strategic planning (Mattelaer 2010, 11). There has been little research studying various security policies in comparison to which ones have the most effect on reducing violence: What EU security policies are most effective in reducing terrorism and ethnic conflicts? The intention of this study is to validate security doctrines in relation to the success of reducing terrorism and ethnic conflicts in the EU. The EU security system is strategically important. Ari Vatanen has argued that unless the EU can formulate strong policies, its current global security system will continue to be ineffective (Vatanen 2009). One of the problems that keeps the EU from having a larger influence in global affairs it its lack of efficiency in three core areas (Vatanen 2009). The first area is improving military capabilities within the EU. Second, the EU will need to gain more influence within its regional boundaries before it can develop closer ties with non-EU states. Third, policies need to be internationally effective by promoting global multilateralism (Vatanen 2009). My analysis of the security problems facing the EU is divided into three sections. The first section will focus on both the positive and negative aspects of EU security policies and how

3 they relate to the security committee’s logic and conclusions. This section will attempt to ascertain whether there is a common pattern that proves to have success within a given security policy. In contrast, I will also conduct cross analysis to determine if there are historical security policy trends that repeat unfavorable results. The second section will be on domestic problems within the EU and how they relate to international problems. First, I will analyze how parties within the EU relate on a political basis. Studies originating from EU political analysis place party attitudes into categories. Studies by Szczerbiak and Taggart indicate that there are no straightforward relationships between the ideology of a clinical party and its position within the EU (Conti 2007, 196). In their view, parties with an ideological doctrine are goal seeking and value oriented. Parties without a set ideology have a pragmatic approach and tend to defend their positions based on a cost-benefit approach (Conti 2007, 196). Additionally, their claim is that both these factors of political party influence play a role in how the parties function and what the perceived interest of their supporters are. Ultimately, this has an effect on EU policy integration in ideology (Conti 2007, 197). Overarching EU political groups will be examined for how their varying views, ideological or pragmatic, relate to the shaping of security policy. There has been research concerning security dilemmas in relation to disordered international system states (Glaser 1997, 171-201). This research has given little focus on why political systems have adopted specific political philosophies. In researching this aspect, the stability of a particular nation, as well as its relation to others, can be properly examined. In this era of technological advancement, it is very critical to determine and understand which security doctrines are effective. Additionally, there are doctrines that are made with similar implementation mechanisms regardless of the diversity in political philosophies behind

4 them, that enhance unity among states, which fosters stability (Herz 1950, 157). The third section of this research paper will focus on EU security policy and how it affects non-EU countries. At the international level, EU sanctions have been questioned for their legitimacy in listing individuals suspected of supporting terrorism. There have been a number of questions pertaining to the competency between the EU and international law (Tzanou 2011, 2124). I will study how the EU utilizes its security policies and what the reactions are from opposing non-EU countries. Baylis has described world political theory as a simplifying device that allows an individual to determine which facts are important and which are not (Baylis 2005, 3). The analysis involved in this research will take this same concept of simplifying information into how EU security policies are observed and used. Perceptions of security reactions have often been misunderstood, leading to conflict. This has led to the increase in arms and the justification for a state’s behavior (Jervis 1976, 73). In addition, if a state’s offense-defense balance is not correctly formulated then information pertaining to the conflict may be difficult to theorize (Lynn-Jones 1995, 679). The security problems within the EU are not from international instability but rather the lack of coherence between domestic parties within the EU. Research Outline Section 1. EU security policies I. II. III. Policies that have worked Policies that have not worked Qualitative Chart Analysis of successful policy patterns

Section 2. Domestic Problems I. Domestic Problems within the EU

5 II. Varying EU political views

Section 3. EU security Policy I. II. III. International security problems The relation between EU security policies and international security problems. Conclusion

6

References Baylis, J., and S. Smith. 2005. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Conti, Nicolò. 2007. “Domestic Parties and European Integration: The Problem of Party Attitudes to the EU, and The Europeanisation of Parties.” European Political Science: EPS 6(2):192-207. http://search.proquest.com/docview/236638356?accountid=8289. Glaser, C.L. 1997. “The Security Dilemma Revisited” World Politics 50(1):171-201. Herz, J. 1950. “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma.” World Politics 2(2):171201 Jervis, R. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Lynn-Jones, S.M. 1995. “Offense-Defense Theory and Its Critics.” Security Studies 4(4):660-691 Portela, Clara. 2012. “The EU Sanctions Operation in Syria: Conflict Management by Other Means.” UNISCI Discussion Papers 30:151-158. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1269113305?accountid=8289. Mattelaer, Alexander. 2010. “The CSDP Mission Planning Process of the European Union: Innovations and Shortfalls. European Integration Online Papers 14:1-18. http://search.proquest.com/docview/759646011?accountid=8289. Tzanou, Maria. 2011. “EU Counter-Terrorist Policies and Fundamental Rights – The Case of Individual Sanctions.” Common Market Law Review 48(6): 2124-2127. http://search.proquest.com/docview/915648627?accountid=8289.

7 Vatanen, Ari. 2009a. “The European Security Strategy—Turning Words into Action.” August 24, 2009. http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home/CommunityPosts/tabid/809/PostID/676 /TheEuropeanSecurityStrategyturningwordsintoaction.aspx Vatanen, Ari. 2009b. Report on the Role of NATO in the Security Architecture of the EU” (2008/2 197(INI)). Committee on Foreign Affairs, EU, January 28, 2009. http://www.europarl. europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=EN&reference=A60033/2009.