Suchergebnisse

The European Union (EU) has launched an impressive number of crisis management missions since its Common Security and Defence Policy became operational in 2003. This article analyses the agenda-setting phase of these civilian and military operations in order to explain why the EU has sent troops, policemen, judges, prosecutors and monitors across three continents. It presents an institutionalist perspective and argues that the former High Representative Javier Solana and his officials have been instrumental in putting various operations on the agenda. They have employed deliberate agenda-setting strategies, such as venue shopping, conflict expansion and issue framing, to further their bureaucratic interest of launching new missions. Solana and his officials had the ability to affect the agenda-setting process thanks to their pivotal position in policy making. This gave them with superior information on the state of play and an early mover advantage as well as strong international networks. The article provides empirical evidence from the crisis management missions in Aceh, Bosnia, Chad and Kosovo. It concludes with the changes to the Common Security and Defence Policy after the Treaty of Lisbon.

Abstract european union (eu) foreign policy has long been considered the domaine réservé of the member states. This article challenges such conventional state-centered wisdom by analyzing the influence of the brussels-based eu officials in the common security and defence policy. Using four case studies and data from 105 semi-structured interviews, it shows that eu officials are most influential in the agenda-setting phase and more influential in civilian than in military operations. Their prominence in agenda-setting can be explained by their central position in the policy process. This allows them to get early involved in the operations. The absence of strong control mechanisms and doctrine in civilian crisis management gives them opportunities to affect civilian missions. Finally, eu officials direct civilian operations from brussels, whereas the command of military operations is with the member states and nato.

Abstract this article evaluates the planning process and initial implementation of the rule of law mission of the european union in kosovo (eulex). It shows that the original intention was to have a smaller presence than the predecessor united nations mission in kosovo (unmik). Yet as a result of a lack of settlement on the international status of kosovo, the european union ended up with a robust mandate and it was unable to make a fresh start in order to distinguish itself from the united nations. Eulex has, nonetheless, successfully established itself, but it remains too early for a final judgment.

Who speaks for Europe is a major question in European integration, yet few systematic attempts have been made to study when the Presidency or the High Representative represents the European Union. This article uses two most-similar cases of conflict resolution with significant EU involvement to argue that the size of the Presidency matters. Large member states have more diplomatic resources and political experience. They were therefore less inclined to rely on the High Representative and his/her staff. The High Representative, on the other hand, had greater difficulties to compete with large member states for media attention and for third party recognition.

This article evaluates the military operation of the European Union in Chad and the Central African Republic in 2008-09. Despite a promising conceptual approach and close cooperation with the United Nations (UN), the operation created significant political problems between member states. It led to a split - France arguing that it carried too much of the burden and Germany and the United Kingdom sensing that they were sponsoring a pet project. When the UN failed to achieve its ambitious promises to establish a parallel presence and follow-on force, tensions arose with the UN as well. This type of operation is therefore unlikely to be repeated in the near future.

This article explains variation in the role of the Council Secretariat in first and second pillar policy-making. While the Council Secretariat started in both pillars as a facilitator of decision-making, it has been delegated additional tasks in foreign policy: from providing content expertise to representation. Such functions would normally have gone to the European Commission, yet in the sensitive domain of foreign policy the member states have preferred their own secretariat. This has implications in terms of agency. Due to its additional tasks, the Council Secretariat has more bureaucratic resources in the second pillar. While its activities furthermore used to be restricted to the decision-making phase, it is now also playing a role in the agenda-shaping and implementation of European foreign policy. These additional bureaucratic resources and opportunities not only impact on the Council Secretariat's political influence in the second pillar, but also on its strategies to promote its preferences.

Abstract this article studies the development of european foreign policy from an informational perspective. It illustrates how since the establishment of european political cooperation in 1970, the european union has gradually evolved from a platform to share foreign policy information into a brussels-based system that gathers and processes information autonomously. Building upon the broader literature of delegation in international organisations, it explains the gradual shift in the centre of informational gravity from the national capitals to brussels through motives of efficiency and credibility. The development of an operational foreign policy after the treaty of amsterdam has considerably raised the demands for rapid and high quality data. A system entirely dependent on the ad hoc information flows from the member states proved incompatible with these new ambitions. The recent establishment of the european external action service and the transformation of the european commission delegations into union delegations is the most recent step in this long-term and highly institutionalised process of european informational cooperation.

The establishment of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) in 1999 has led to the creation of a whole range of bureaucratic bodies in Brussels and the national capitals. These bodies support the crisis management operations of the European Union. This review article presents the state of the art of academic research on the role of bureaucracy in this recent policy area. It argues that the growing institutional complexity and the constant interaction between actors at the national and European level require scholars to go beyond the dominant approaches of International Relations. Using insights from comparative politics, public administration and multi-level governance, this article considers four important questions: who these civil servants are, why they matter, how they interact, and how they are controlled politically and democratically.

The european union member states split over the military intervention in libya with france, germany and the uk voting differently in the united nations security council. This article compares news media in france and germany to better understand the foreign policy decisions of these key actors. Using a newspaper analysis of 334 articles, it shows that the german domestic debate started very late and was much less stable than the french debate. This supports arguments that germany's decision-making was erratic. The analysis, however, also shows that the german debate was comprehensive and included an extensive discussion of the legitimacy of intervention. This fits in well with the traditional reluctance of german foreign policy elites to support military action.

In 1985 the French government created a unique circuit for the dissemination of doctoral theses: References went to a national database "Téléthèses" whereas the documents were distributed to the university libraries in microform. In the era of the electronic document this French network of deposit of and access to doctoral theses is changing. How do you discover and locate a French thesis today, how do you get hold of a paper copy and how do you access the full electronic text? What are the catalogues and databases referencing theses since the disappearance of "Téléthèses"? Where are the archives, and are they open? What is the legal environment that rules the emerging structures and tools? This paper presents national plans on referencing and archiving doctoral theses coordinated by the government as well as some initiatives for creating full text archives. These initiatives come from universities as well as from research institutions and learned societies. "Téléthèses" records have been integrated in a union catalogue of French university libraries SUDOC. University of Lyon-2 and INSA Lyon developed procedures and tools covering the entire production chain from writing to the final access in an archive: "Cyberthèses" and "Cither". The CNRS Centre for Direct Scientific Communication at Lyon (CCSD) maintains an archive ("TEL") with about 2000 theses in all disciplines. Another repository for theses in engineering, economics and management called "Pastel" is proposed by the Paris Institute of Technology (ParisTech), a consortium of 10 engineering and commercial schools of the Paris region.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) ; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) ; FINEP (Brazil) ; NSFC (China) ; CNRS/IN2P3 (France) ; BMBF (Germany) ; DFG (Germany) ; HGF (Germany) ; SFI (Ireland) ; INFN (Italy) ; NASU (Ukraine) ; STFC (UK) ; NSF (USA) ; BMWFW (Austria) ; FWF (Austria) ; FNRS (Belgium) ; FWO (Belgium) ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) ; MES (Bulgaria) ; CAS (China) ; MoST (China) ; COLCIENCIAS (Colombia) ; MSES (Croatia) ; CSF (Croatia) ; RPF (Cyprus) ; MoER (Estonia) ; ERC IUT (Estonia) ; ERDF (Estonia) ; Academy of Finland (Finland) ; MEC (Finland) ; HIP (Finland) ; CEA (France) ; GSRT (Greece) ; OTKA (Hungary) ; NIH (Hungary) ; DAE (India) ; DST (India) ; IPM (Iran) ; NRF (Republic of Korea) ; WCU (Republic of Korea) ; LAS (Lithuania) ; MOE (Malaysia) ; UM (Malaysia) ; CINVESTAV (Mexico) ; CONACYT (Mexico) ; SEP (Mexico) ; UASLP-FAI (Mexico) ; MBIE (New Zealand) ; PAEC (Pakistan) ; MSHE (Poland) ; NSC (Poland) ; FCT (Portugal) ; JINR (Dubna) ; MON (Russia) ; RosAtom (Russia) ; RAS (Russia) ; RFBR (Russia) ; MESTD (Serbia) ; SEIDI (Spain) ; CPAN (Spain) ; MST (Taipei) ; ThEPCenter (Thailand) ; IPST (Thailand) ; STAR (Thailand) ; NSTDA (Thailand) ; TUBITAK (Turkey) ; TAEK (Turkey) ; SFFR (Ukraine) ; DOE (USA) ; MPG (Germany) ; FOM (The Netherlands) ; NWO (The Netherlands) ; MNiSW (Poland) ; NCN (Poland) ; MEN/IFA (Romania) ; MinES (Russia) ; FANO (Russia) ; MinECo (Spain) ; SNSF (Switzerland) ; SER (Switzerland) ; Marie-Curie programme ; European Research Council ; EPLANET (European Union) ; Leventis Foundation ; A. P. Sloan Foundation ; Alexander von Humboldt Foundation ; Belgian Federal Science Policy Office ; Fonds pour la Formation a la Recherche dans l'Industrie et dans l'Agriculture (FRIABelgium) ; Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium) ; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic ; Council of Science and Industrial Research, India ; Foundation for Polish Science ; European Union, Regional Development Fund ; Compagnia di San Paolo (Torino) ; Consorzio per la Fisica (Trieste) ; MIUR (Italy) ; Thalis programme ; Aristeia programme ; EU-ESF ; Greek NSRF ; National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund ; EPLANET ; Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions ; ERC (European Union) ; Conseil general de Haute-Savoie ; Labex ENIGMASS ; OCEVU ; Region Auvergne (France) ; XuntaGal (Spain) ; GENCAT (Spain) ; Royal Society (UK) ; Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 (UK) ; MIUR (Italy): 20108T4XTM ; The standard model of particle physics describes the fundamental particles and their interactions via the strong, electromagnetic and weak forces. It provides precise predictions for measurable quantities that can be tested experimentally. The probabilities, or branching fractions, of the strange B meson (B-s(0)) and the B-0 meson decaying into two oppositely charged muons (mu(+) and mu(-)) are especially interesting because of their sensitivity to theories that extend the standard model. The standard model predicts that the B-s(0)->mu(+)mu(-) and B-0 ->mu(+)mu(-) decays are very rare, with about four of the former occurring for every billion B-s(0) mesons produced, and one of the latter occurring for every ten billion B-0 mesons(1). A difference in the observed branching fractions with respect to the predictions of the standard model would provide a direction in which the standard model should be extended. Before the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN2 started operating, no evidence for either decay mode had been found. Upper limits on the branching fractions were an order of magnitude above the standard model predictions. The CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid) and LHCb(Large Hadron Collider beauty) collaborations have performed a joint analysis of the data from proton-proton collisions that they collected in 2011 at a centre-of-mass energy of seven teraelectronvolts and in 2012 at eight teraelectronvolts. Here we report the first observation of the B-s(0)->mu(+)mu(-) decay, with a statistical significance exceeding six standard deviations, and the best measurement so far of its branching fraction. Furthermore, we obtained evidence for the B-0 ->mu(+)mu(-) decay with a statistical significance of three standard deviations. Both measurements are statistically compatible with standard model predictions and allow stringent constraints to be placed on theories beyond the standard model. The LHC experiments will resume taking data in 2015, recording proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 teraelectronvolts, which will approximately double the production rates of B-s(0) and B-0 mesons and lead to further improvements in the precision of these crucial tests of the standard model.