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

4

similar implementation mechanisms regardless of the diversity in political philosophies behind

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. Policies that have worked

II. Policies that have not worked

III. Qualitative Chart Analysis of successful policy patterns

Section 2. Domestic Problems

5

I. Domestic Problems within the EU

II. Varying EU political views

Section 3. EU security Policy

I. International security problems

II. The relation between EU security policies and international security problems.

III. 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):171-

201

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=A6-

0033/2009.