Permanent Structured Cooperation and European Intervention Initiative as Preludes of a Single European Army

• Název práce v češtině: Stálá strukturovaná spolupráce a Evropská intervenční iniciativa jako předstupně jednotné evropské armády
• Název v anglickém jazyce: Permanent Structured Cooperation and European Intervention Initiative as Preludes of a Single European Army
• Klíčová slova: Aliance, Armáda, Bezpečnost, Bezpečnostní komunita, Evropská integrace, Evropská intervenční iniciativa, Evropská unie, NATO, Stálá strukturovaná spolupráce, Vojsko
• Klíčová slova anglicky: Alliance, Army, European Integration, European Intervention Initiative, European Union, Military, NATO, Permanent Structured Cooperation, Security, Security Community
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2018/2019
• Typ práce: diplomová práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: Katedra bezpečnostních studií (23-KBS)
• Vedoucí / školitel: Mgr. et Mgr. Tomáš Kučera, Ph.D.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
• Datum přihlášení: 24.06.2019
• Datum zadání: 24.06.2019
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 03.02.2021 00:00
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 03.01.2021
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 03.02.2021
• Oponenti: Mgr. Kristián Földes

Seznam odborné literatury

Adler, Emanuel and Michael Barnett. 1998. “A framework for the study of security communities“. IN: Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, Security Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Aydin-Düzgit, Senem. 2018. “PESCO and third countries: Breaking the deadlock in European security“. FEUTURE, no. 3 (January).
Barnes, Julian E and Helene Cooper. 2019. “Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia“, The New York Times. Available on-line [26/06/2019, 16:52]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html.
Baun, Michael and Dan Marek. 2019. “Making Europe Defend Again: The Relaunch of European Defense Cooperation from a Neoclassical Realist Perspective”, Czech Journal of International Relations, vol. 54, no. 4.
Beckley, Michael. 2013. “The Myth of Entangling Alliances: Reassessing the Security Risks of U.S. Defense Pacts“. International Security, Vol. 39, No. 4, p. 10.
Bellamy, Richard. 2003. “Sovereignty, Post-Sovereignty and Pre-Sovereignty: Three Models of The State, Democracy, and Rights Within the EU”, SSRN Electronic Journal (January).
Benavente, Enrique Mora. 2017. “Time for the Sleeping Beauty to wake“, European Council on Foreign Relations (2017). Available on-line [04/04/2019, 16:57]: https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_time_for_the_sleeping_beauty_to_wake.
Biscop, Sven. 2018. “European defence: give PESCO a chance“, Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, vol. 60, no. 3. (June–July).
Blockmans, Steven. 2018. “The EU’s modular approach to defence integration: An inclusive, ambitious and legally binding PESCO?”, Common Market Law Review 55(6).
Briançon, Pierre. 2017. “5 takeaways from Macron’s big speech on Europe’s future”, Politico.eu. Available on-line [10/04/2019, 18:53]: https://www.politico.eu/article/5-takeaways-from-macrons-big-speech-on-europes-future/.
Brzozowski, Alexandra. 2019. “Question marks over third country participation in EU military projects“, EURACTIV. Available on-line [28/03/2020, 10:11]: https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/question-marks-over-third-country-participation-in-eu-military-projects/.
Financial Times. 2016. “Pooled sovereignty has advanced national goals“. Available on-line [13/01/2020, 16:52]: https://www.ft.com/content/169fa2a2-2eee-11e6-a18d-a96ab29e3c95.
Gambino, Lauren. 2014. “What is the US national guard and when is it called up?”, The Guardian. Available on-line [28/11/2020, 8:53]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/18/what-is-national-guard-ferguson-missouri.
Genna, M. Gaspare and Florian Justwan. 2019. “Public perceptions of the European power hierarchy and support for a single European security and defense policy“, The Social Science Journal (January).
Haas, Ernest B. 1961. “International Integration: The European and the Universal Process”, International Organization, vol. 15, no. 3 (Summer).
Hill, Christopher and Karen E. Smith. 2000. European Foreign Policy: Key Documents (London: Routledge).
Hillion, Christophe. 2019. “Norway and the changing Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union“, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, NUPI Report 1.
Holmberg, Arita. 2011. “The changing role of NATO: exploring the implications for security governance and legitimacy“. European Security, Vol. 20, No. 4.
Howorth, Jolyon. 2004. “The European Draft Constitutional Treaty and the Future of the European Defence Initiative: A Question of Flexibility”, European Foreign Affairs Review 9.
Hristov, Neno. 2018. „European intervention initiative vs. common European army“, International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, vol. 4, no. 12.
Jakobsen, Jo. 2018. “Is European NATO really free-riding? Patterns of material and non-material burden-sharing after the Cold War”, European Security 27.
Järvenpää, Pauli, Claudia Major and Sven Sakkov. 2019. “European Strategic Autonomy: Operationalising a Buzzword“, International Centre for Defence and Security, (October).
Joop, Mathias and Jana Schubert. 2019. “PESCO and New Methods of Intergovernmental Integration”, L’Europe en Formation 2019/2, no. 389.
Karlas, Jan. 2008. “Komparativní případová studie”. IN: Petr Drulák et al., Jak zkoumat politiku: Kvalitativní metodologie v politologii a mezinárodních vztazích (Prague: Portál).
Keukeleire, Stephan. 2009. “European Security and Defense Policy: From Taboo to a Spearhead of EU Foreign Policy”. IN: The Foreign Policy of the European Union: Assessing Europe’s Role in the World (Washington: Brookings Institution Press).
Kissinger, Henry. 2015. World Order (London: Penguin Books).
Kobza, Robert. 2019. “The European Union’s Defense Ambitions Threaten to Undermine European Security”, Georgetown Security Studies Review. Available on-line [26/06/2019, 16:52]: https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2019/10/24/the-european-unions-defense-ambitions-threaten-to-undermine-european-security/.
Koenig, Nicole. 2018. “The European Intervention Initiative: A look behind the scenes”, Jacques Delors Centre. Available on-line [26/06/2019, 16:52]: https://www.delorscentre.eu/en/publications/detail/publication/the-european-intervention-initiative-a-look-behind-the-scenes/.
Kolín, Vilém. 2018. “Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO): New Pillar in Building European Defence”, Czech Military Review no. 4.
Kučera, Tomáš. 2017. “What European army? Alliance, security community or postnational federation”, International Politics, vol. 56, no. 2.
Kunz, Josef L. 1953. “Treaty Establishing the European Defense Community”. IN: The American Journal of International Law, 47(2).
Leuprecht, Christian and Rhianna Hamilton. 2019. “New opportunities in common security and defence policy: Joining PESCO“, Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, vol. 11 (3).
Litwin, Boris. 2018. “Enabling the European intervention initiative: can U.S. Africa Command serve as an organisational blueprint?”, Foreign Policy Review, vol. 11.
Major, Claudia and Christian Mölling. 2018. “Why joining France’s European Intervention Initiative is the right decision for Germany”, Egmont: Royal Institute for International Relations. Available on-line [27/03/2019, 16:02]: http://www.egmontinstitute.be/why-joining-frances-european-intervention-initiative-is-the-right-decision-for-germany/.
Maulny, Jean-Pierre. 2019. “L’initiative européenne d’intervention (IEI) : Le désir d’une Europe plus autonome d’Emmanuel Macron”, L’Europe en Formation, no. 389 (2).
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2002. “In Defence of the “Democratic Deficit”: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union”, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 40, no. 4.
Mölder, Holger. 2006. “NATO’s Role in the Post-Modern European Security Environment, Cooperative Security and the Experience of the Baltic Sea Region“. Baltic Security & Defence Review, vol. 8.
Nocoń, Jarosław, Lesia Dorosh and Olha Ivasechko. 2019. “PESCO as the modern defence initiative of the European Union: Positions of Western European countries vs Positions of Eastern European countries”, EJTS European Journal of Transformation Studies, vol. 7, no. 2.
Nováky, Niklas. 2018. “France’s European Intervention Initiative: Towards a Culture of Burden Sharing”, European View 17(2).
Paccaud, Laurent. 2018. “Initiative européenne d’intervention : vers l’avenir avec la facilité européenne de paix”, Revue Défense Nationale, no. 813.
Pastori, Gianluca. 2018. “NATO and the challenge of a European military identity: the European Intervention Initiative (EI2)“, Osservatorio Strategico. vol. 20 (1).
Peterson, John. 1997. “The European Union: Pooled Sovereignty, Divided Accountability“, Political Studies, vol. 45, no. 3.
Peterson, John. 2018. “Structure, agency and transatlantic relations in the Trump era”, Journal of European Integration, 40 (5).
Petráš, Zdeněk and Ján Spišák. 2018. “EU Permanent Structured Cooperation – a New Momentum for Streamlining Interaction Between the EU Operations Planning and Capability Development”, Czech Military Review no. 3.
Roth, Andrew. 2019. “Molotov-Ribbentrop: why is Moscow trying to justify Nazi pact?“, The Guardian. Available on-line [18/04/2020, 16:06]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/23/moscow-campaign-to-justify-molotov-ribbentrop-pact-sparks-outcry.
Selden, Zachary. 2010. “Power is Always in Fashion: State-Centric Realism and the European Security and Defence Policy”, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 48., no., 2.
Singer, J. David and Melvin Small. 1966. “Formal Alliances, 1815-1939: A Quantitative Description”. Journal of Peace Research, vol. 3, no. 1.
Stan, Adrian Daniel. 2017. “From enhanced cooperation to PESCO, a nexus to shape CSDP’s future”, Annals of the „Constantin Brâncuși” University of Târgu Jiu, Letter and Social Science Series, Supplement 2.
Tusicisny, Andrej, 2007. “Security Communities and Their Values: Taking Masses Seriously“. International Political Science Review, vol., no. 4.
Wallace, William. 1999 “The Sharing of Sovereignty: The European Paradox“. Political Studies, vol. 47, no. 3.
Witney, Nick. 2018. “Macron and the European Intervention Initiative: Erasmus for soldiers?“, European Council on Foreign Relations. Available on-line [27/03/2019, 16:05]: https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_macron_and_the_european_intervention_initiative_erasmus_for_sold
Zandee, Dick and Kimberley Kruijver. 2019. “The European Intervention Initiative Developing a shared strategic culture for European defence“, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, (September).
Zyla, Benjamin. 2018. “Transatlantic burden sharing: suggesting a new research agenda”, European Security 27(3).

Předběžná náplň práce

Tato diplomová práce se zaměřuje na potenciál dvou nedávno spuštěných iniciativ, Stálé strukturované spolupráce a Evropské intervenční iniciativy, v kontextu možného vzniku jednotné evropské armády. S oběma iniciativami se pojila vysoká očekávání ohledně jejich příspěvku k pokračující integraci v oblasti obrany v Evropě. Pro výzkum těchto dvou iniciativ vytváříme unikátní teoretickou kategorizaci, která je založena na realistickém konceptu aliance a konstruktivistickém konceptu bezpečnostní komunity. Obě iniciativy jsou následně do kategorizace zasazeny s tím, že zjišťujeme, jaký konstruktivistický teoretický model pro studium obranné integrace se nejlépe hodí pro Stálou strukturovanou spolupráci a analogicky, jaký model je nejvhodnější pro Evropskou intervenční iniciativu. Na základě teoretických východisek je provedena empirická analýza obou iniciativ, díky níž zjistíme, jaké novinky přináší Stálá strukturovaná spolupráce a Evropská intervenční iniciativa do integrace v oblasti obrany. Zaměřili jsme se hlavně na systém jejich správy, institucionální strukturu a financování. Zvláštní pozornost byla věnována také konceptu sdílené suverenity. Práce je postavena na obsahové analýze primárních zdrojů a relevantní sekundární literatury.

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

The master’s thesis focuses on the potential of two recently launched initiatives, The Permanent Structured Cooperation and The European Intervention Initiative, to serve as preludes of the single European army. Both initiatives shared high expectations as vehicles for a relaunch of integration in defence domain in Europe, but do they really move the efforts in this respect forward? To study the two projects, we establish a unique theoretical measurement of defence and security integration, based on the realist concept of the alliance and constructivist concept of the security community. We then ask what constructivist theoretical model for the study of defence integration fits The Permanent Structured Cooperation best, and analogically, which archetype is the most suitable for The European Intervention Initiative. Based on the theoretical underpinnings, we carry out an empirical analysis of both initiatives to find out what novelties they bring to the area of defence. We focused mainly on their governance, institutional fabric and funding. Special attention was paid to varying level of pooled sovereignty. The thesis is built on the content analysis of primary sources and where appropriate on relevant secondary literature.