The European Security and Defence Policy from ‘National’ to ‘European’ Interests?

  • Katrin Milzow
Part of the International Relations and Development Series book series (IRD)


The EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and in particular the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), which officially became a component of CFSP with the Treaty of Nice, were frequently presented by political leaders as fundamental aspects of a renewed project of European integration. This idea echoes in Tony Blair’s vision of a European superpower as much as in Jacques Chirac’s discourse of Europe puissance or Europe de la défense.1 Describing their vision of a modern Union in terms of power or defence, leaders conveyed the hope that the success of CFSP and ESDP might renew the entire European project. In this respect CFSP and ESDP not only incarnated the EU’s new openness towards the external world, following the inward-looking focus which characterised most European initiatives during the Cold War period. They were also associated with renewed dynamism and a greater relevance to contemporary challenges.2


Security Policy National Interest Issue Area Defence Policy European Security 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 3.
    Morgenthau first expanded on his notion of national interest in his Politics Among Nations (Morgenthau, H. J., Politics Among Nations, New York, Knopf, 1985).Google Scholar
  2. Amongst those who responded to Morgenthau’s work see for example Niebuhr, R., Christian Realism and Political Problems, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953;Google Scholar
  3. Niebuhr, R., The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, 1950 [1944];Google Scholar
  4. Good, R. C., ‘The National Interest and Political Realism: Niebuhr’s “Debate” with Morgenthau and Kennan’, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 22(4), November 1960, pp. 597–619;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook, T. I., Moos, M., ‘The American Idea of International Interest’, in Jacobson, H. K., America’s Foreign Policy, New York, Random House, 1960 [1953], pp. 135–56;Google Scholar
  6. Wolfers, A., ‘National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol’, in McLellan, D. S., Olson, W. C., Sondermann, F. A. (eds), The Theory and Practice of International Relations, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1960 [1952], pp. 186–92.Google Scholar
  7. 13.
    In an introduction to a collective work published in 1997, Anand Menon thus wrote rather cautiously that ‘it may well be, for instance, that policy makers will assume future moves towards defence integration from ambitious declarations such as those contained within the Maastricht Treaty’ (Menon, A., ‘Introduction’, in Howorth, J., Menon, A. (eds), The European Union and National Defence Policy, London, Routledge, 1997, p. 4).Google Scholar
  8. 130.
    Council of the European Union, A Secure Europe in a Better World, 12 December 2003, Brussels; on the ESS see also Biscop, S., Andersson, J. J. (eds), The EU and the European Security Strategy, Forging a Global Europe, London, Routledge, 2008;Google Scholar
  9. Deighton, A., Maurer, V. (eds), Securing Europe? Implementing the European Security Strategy, Zürcher Beiträge zur Sicherheitspolitik Nr. 77, ETZ Zurich, 2006; and Bailes, A. J. K., ‘The European Security Strategy, an Evolutionary History’, SIPRI Policy Paper No 10, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, February 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Katrin Milzow 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katrin Milzow

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations