Suchergebnisse

The enduring civil war in Syria, the fragile security situation in the Sahel and the armed conflict in Ukraine's Donbass region demonstrate that the European Union (EU) is currently confronted with complex security challenges. To provide an adequate response to these challenges, the EU seeks to implement a "joined-up" approach to its external action and strengthen its capacities at the interface of security and development policies. This paper analyses the European Union (EU)'s approach to the security-development nexus, focusing on the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP). The paper starts by placing the EU's approach to the security-development nexus in a broader context before demonstrating its manifestation in EU external policy discourse. Moreover, the paper discusses in what ways the EU has overcome its institutional fragmentation in managing the security-development interface. The paper then introduces the reader to the IcSP and presents empirical findings on the IcSP's impact. The analysis reveals that IcSP interventions make a valuable contribution to EU efforts in stabilising conflict and crisis situations and in preventing the escalation of violence. IcSP actions also contribute significantly to boosting partners' capacities for conflict prevention and peacebuilding both on a short-term and long-term basis. The IcSP makes a difference to EU external action as it provides the Union with a significant first-response capacity that has the potential to pave the way for longer-term EU engagement. However, there are challenges to swift decision-making and implementation as well as to coordination with other external financial instruments (EFIs). These challenges need to be overcome to maximise the IcSP's internal and external impact. Finally, the paper discusses how the debate about Capacity Building in Support of Security and Development (CBSD) has revealed deep-seated, diverging views on the relationship between EU security and development policy. The paper argues for filling the security-development nexus with further substance to avoid it becoming a mere buzzword that is used to instrumentalise development policy for security purposes. As the IcSP has proven its added value to EU efforts in conflict prevention and peacebuilding, it should be maintained during the next MFF period.

This article explains the creation of the European Institute of Peace (EIP) in May 2014. Combining constructivist insights on policy ideas with a framing approach, it proposes a conceptual framework to analyse the dynamics of interaction between state and non-state actors (NSAs) with regard to formulating new policies and creating new institutions. Focusing on the role of frame entrepreneurs, framing strategies and frame resonance, it argues that the creation of the EIP was a result of framing undertaken by an advocacy coalition in which Sweden and Finland, together with specialized NGOs and individual Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), played the role of frame entrepreneurs. This advocacy coalition managed to convince a number of European states there was a certain gap in the EU's mediation capacities and that a new institution independent of the EU was needed to address it. The limited degree of frame resonance among the majority of EU member states and their reluctance to join the institute explain why the EIP initiative struggled to receive broad political support.

The enduring civil war in Syria, the fragile security situation in the Sahel and the armed conflict in Ukraine's Donbass region demonstrate that the European Union (EU) is currently confronted with complex security challenges. To provide an adequate response to these challenges, the EU seeks to implement a "joined-up" approach to its external action and strengthen its capacities at the interface of security and development policies.This paper analyses the European Union (EU)'s approach to the security-development nexus, focusing on the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP). The paper starts by placing the EU's approach to the security-development nexus in a broader context before demonstrating its manifestation in EU external policy discourse. Moreover, the paper discusses in what ways the EU has overcome its institutional fragmentation in managing the security-development interface. The paper then introduces the reader to the IcSP and presents empirical findings on the IcSP's impact. The analysis reveals that IcSP interventions make a valuable contribution to EU efforts in stabilising conflict and crisis situations and in preventing the escalation of violence. IcSP actions also contribute significantly to boosting partners' capacities for conflict prevention and peacebuilding both on a short-term and long-term basis. The IcSP makes a difference to EU external action as it provides the Union with a significant first-response capacity that has the potential to pave the way for longer-term EU engagement. However, there are challenges to swift decision-making and implementation as well as to coordination with other external financial instruments (EFIs). These challenges need to be overcome to maximise the IcSP's internal and external impact.Finally, the paper discusses how the debate about Capacity Building in Support of Security and Development (CBSD) has revealed deep-seated, diverging views on the relationship between EU security and development policy. The paper argues for filling the security-development nexus with further substance to avoid it becoming a mere buzzword that is used to instrumentalise development policy for security purposes. As the IcSP has proven its added value to EU efforts in conflict prevention and peacebuilding, it should be maintained during the next MFF period.

This article explains the creation of the European Institute of Peace (EIP) in May 2014. Combining constructivist insights on policy ideas with a framing approach, it proposes a conceptual framework to analyse the dynamics of interaction between state and non-state actors (NSAs) with regard to formulating new policies and creating new institutions. Focusing on the role of frame entrepreneurs, framing strategies and frame resonance, it argues that the creation of the EIP was a result of framing undertaken by an advocacy coalition in which Sweden and Finland, together with specialized NGOs and individual Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), played the role of frame entrepreneurs. This advocacy coalition managed to convince a number of European states there was a certain gap in the EU's mediation capacities and that a new institution independent of the EU was needed to address it. The limited degree of frame resonance among the majority of EU member states and their reluctance to join the institute explain why the EIP initiative struggled to receive broad political support.

Sicherheitssektorreform (SSR) bildet ein Kernstück des Engagements der Europäischen Union (EU) zur Vermeidung gewalttätiger Konflikte und zur Stabilisierung der Lage nach Konflikten. Der bestehende Rechtsrahmen schließt allerdings die Verwendung von EU-Haushaltsmitteln zur Finanzierung der Unterstützung der Streitkräfte von Partnerländern aus. Im Rahmen der Initiative zum Kapazitätsaufbau zur Förderung von Sicherheit und Entwicklung (CBSD) will die EU diese Finanzierungslücke schließen und die Finanzierung von Ausbildung, Ausrüstung und Infrastruktur für militärische Akteure ermöglichen. Dabei liegt der CBSD-Initiative die Annahme zugrunde, dass Sicherheit eine Bedingung für Entwicklung bildet und dass nachhaltige Entwicklung nur erreicht werden kann, wenn staatliche – einschließlich militärische – Institutionen über angemessene Kapazitäten verfügen. Zur Umsetzung von CBSD hat die Europäische Kommission im Juli 2016 die Anpassung der Verordnung zur Schaffung des Instruments für Stabilität und Frieden (IcSP) vorgeschlagen. Das IcSP ist das Hauptinstrument der EU zur Finanzierung von Konfliktprävention und friedensfördernden Maßnahmen. Der Vorschlag der Kommission zur Änderung der IcSP-Verordnung sieht die Einführung neuer Unterstützungsmaßnahmen im Rahmen von CBSD vor. Sowohl innerhalb der EU Institutionen als auch in der breiteren entwicklungspolitischen "Community" wurde der Vorschlag der Kommission kontrovers diskutiert. Der vorliegende Artikel argumentiert, dass die Umsetzung von CBSD zu einer Versicherheitlichung der EU-Entwicklungs­politik beitragen kann. Die Bereitstellung von Training und Ausrüstung für militärische Akteure in Ländern wie Somalia und Mali ist notwendig, um die Glaubwürdigkeit und Effektivität der EU als sicherheitspolitischer Akteur sicherzustellen. Allerdings schafft die Verwendung des IcSP zur Finanzierung von CBSD-Aktivitäten einen Präzedenzfall für die Nutzung von entwicklungspolitischen Instrumenten im EU Haushalt zur Finanzierung der Unterstützung militärischer Akteure. Ohne Begründungszusammenhang zwischen den vorgeschlagenen Aktivitäten und den Zielen von EU-Entwicklungspolitik birgt CBSD das Risiko, dass Entwicklungspolitik sicherheitspolitischen Zielen untergeordnet wird. Ein Schlüsselproblem der Debatte um CBSD besteht in der mangelnden Klarheit bezüglich des Umfangs der vorgesehenen Unterstützungsmaßnahmen. Überdies besteht erhebliche Unsicherheit im Hinblick auf die Rechtsgrundlage der IcSP-Änderungsverordnung. Und schließlich befürchten zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen, dass CBSD einen Trend zur Verschiebung der EU Prioritäten weg von zivilen und hin zu militärischen Instrumenten zur Krisenbewältigung markiert. Die wesentliche Herausforderung besteht darin, auf diese Bedenken und Vorbehalte einzugehen und eine geeignete, dauerhafte Regelung zur Finanzierung der CBSD-Aktivitäten im nächsten mehrjährigen EU Finanzrahmen (MFR) von 2021 bis 2027 zu finden. Kurzfristig sind eine höhere Transparenz der geplanten CBSD-Aktivitäten sowie eine substantielle Debatte über deren Verbindungen zu den Zielen von EU-Entwicklungspolitik notwendig. Mittelfristig sollte die EU ein spezifisches Instrument schaffen, dass die CBSD-Aktivitäten von der Finanzierung für zivile Konfliktprävention und friedensfördernde Maßnahmen trennt.

Security sector reform (SSR) is a core element of the European Union's (EU) efforts to prevent violent conflicts and stabilise post-conflict situations. The existing legal framework excludes the use of EU budgetary sources to finance assistance to the armed forces of partner countries. Under the umbrella of Capacity Building in Support of Security and Development (CBSD), the EU seeks to address this funding gap and enable the financing of training, equipment and infrastructure to military actors. The main rationale behind CBSD is the assumption that security is a precondition for development, and that sustainable development can only be achieved when state institutions – including the military – acquire adequate capacities. To implement the CBSD initiative, the European Commission in July 2016 proposed to adapt the Regulation establishing the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP). The IcSP is the EU's main instrument to fund conflict prevention and peacebuilding activities. The Commission's proposal to amend the IcSP Regulation envisages the introduction of new types of assistance measures that address CBSD demands. Both EU institutions and the wider development community have controversially discussed the Commission's proposal. This Briefing Paper engages this debate and discusses the possible implications of the IcSP reform. The main argument of the paper is that the implementa¬tion of CBSD, as proposed by the European Commission, is likely to contribute to the securitisation of EU development policy. The provision of training and equipment to military actors is needed to preserve the EU's credibility and effectiveness as a security provider in countries such as Somalia and Mali. However, the use of the IcSP for funding CBSD activities sets a precedent for using development instruments within the EU's budget for financing assistance to military actors. Without a precise justification for the link between the proposed activities and EU development objectives, CBSD risks subordinating development policy to EU security goals. One key problem of the debate over CBSD is a lack of clarity concerning the scope of the envisaged assistance measures. Moreover, there is considerable uncertainty regarding EU development policy forming the legal basis of the Commission's proposal. Finally, civil society organisations fear that the proposed IcSP reform marks the beginning of a trend of shifting EU priorities from civilian to military instruments to address crises and violent conflicts. The main challenge is to address these concerns and find a suitable, permanent arrangement for funding CBSD activities within the EU's next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) between 2021 and 2027. In the short term, greater transparency of the envisaged CBSD activities and a substantive debate about their links to EU development policy objectives are needed. In the medium term, the EU should create a dedicated instrument that separates CBSD activities from funding for civilian conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts.