首页> 外文期刊>Liverpool Law Review >The EU or France? The CSDP Mission in Mali the Consistency of the EU Africa policy
【24h】

The EU or France? The CSDP Mission in Mali the Consistency of the EU Africa policy

机译:欧盟还是法国? CSDP马里特派团与欧盟非洲政策保持一致

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The EU’s role in the recent Mali crisis offers a good opportunity to assess the consistency of the EU’s Africa [Africa as used here refers to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)—the region of the EU’s most extensive external policy] policy in the post-Lisbon era. Against the background of the EU’s external policy objectives with special reference to SSA, this Article will particularly offer a comprehensive overview of the legal and policy dynamics of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). This will be discussed especially with reference to how they relate to (in)consistency in implementation as illustrated in the EU’s role in the recent Mali crisis. Although the EU initially made a decision to deploy an EU Training Mission to Mali, the EU did not activate the peacekeeping dimension of the CSDP as required at an advanced stage of the crisis. Instead, this gap was filled by France’s unilateral military intervention in Mali. The EU’s inertia in this regard raises the question of the consistency of its external policy instruments and policy objectives towards the region. Without excluding other possible contributing factors, the analysis submits that the ‘partial’ activation of the CSDP in Mali is mainly attributable to the constitutional specificity of the CSDP especially its lack of permanent and planning conduct structures. In any event, it is argued that these do not render the EU’s role in Mali less inconsistent both in the light of the relevant EU external policy instruments and objectives towards SSA in general, and in the light of the CSDP objectives in particular. In general, the Article uses Mali as a case study to illustrate the extent and therefore the limits of the consistency of the EU’s CSDP and its overall policy towards SSA especially post-Lisbon. Whilst acknowledging the current limits of the law in this context, the Article nevertheless argues that the dire implications of inconsistency for the effectiveness of the EU’s policies and for the credibility of the Union make a search for practical, if not legal solutions, a political imperative. This is necessary especially if the EU wants to protect or indeed rebuild its credibility as an international actor in general, and as an effective partner for crisis management in SSA, in particular [The EU’s credibility in much of the African Caribbean and Pacific states, especially SSA is reportedly already at an all-time low (Mackie J et al. in Policy Manag Insights ECDPM 2, 2010)].
机译:欧盟在最近的马里危机中扮演的角色提供了一个很好的机会,可以评估欧盟后非洲在欧盟[此处所用的非洲指撒哈拉以南非洲地区(SSA)–欧盟最广泛的对外政策区域)政策的一致性。里斯本时代。在特别参照SSA的欧盟外部政策目标的背景下,本文将特别概述欧盟共同安全与防卫政策(CSDP)的法律和政策动态。如欧盟在最近的马里危机中所扮演的角色所示,这将特别参考它们如何与执行中的(不一致)联系进行讨论。尽管欧盟最初决定部署欧盟驻马里培训团,但欧盟并未在危机的高级阶段按要求启动CSDP的维和工作。相反,法国对马里的单方面军事干预填补了这一空白。欧盟在这方面的惯性提出了其对该地区的外部政策工具和政策目标是否一致的问题。在不排除其他可能的影响因素的情况下,分析认为,马里CSDP的“部分”启动主要是由于CSDP的宪法特殊性,尤其是缺乏永久性和计划性的行为结构。无论如何,无论是从相关的欧盟外部政策工具和总体上针对SSA的目标,还是从CSDP的目标来看,这些都不会使欧盟在马里的角色更加一致。总的来说,该条以马里为案例研究,以说明欧盟CSDP以及其对SSA特别是在里斯本之后的总体政策的一致性的程度和局限性。该条款虽然承认了当前法律的局限性,但仍然指出,不一致对欧盟政策的有效性和欧盟的公信力的可怕影响使得寻求切实可行的解决方案(即使不是法律解决方案)也成为政治上的当务之急。 。特别是在欧盟想要保护或确实重建其作为国际行为者的信誉,以及作为SSA危机管理的有效合作伙伴的信誉时,这一点尤其必要。尤其是[欧盟在许多非洲加勒比海和太平洋国家中的信誉,尤其是据报道,SSA已经处于历史最低水平(Mackie J等人,Policy Manag Insights ECDPM 2,2010年)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号