Abstract
This chapter conducts a first attempt at establishing what type of actor the EU is becoming in relation to the maritime Global Commons through an in-depth study of the EU Maritime Security Strategy (EUMSS) and the EU’s Arctic policies. With environmental and technological developments, the maritime Global Commons areas are increasingly subject to competition over resources, sovereignty claims, and great power rivalry, particularly on the high seas. For example, with the ice melting in the Arctic, the prospects of strategically and economically important new sea lines and untapped natural resources are creating conflicts between states who want territorial control or equal access to previously unavailable areas. Disagreement over sovereignty claims is also at the centre of conflicts in the South China Sea. At the same time, many of today’s broader security challenges are linked to the high seas, including piracy, migration, terrorism, or the consequences of pollution and climate change. In this environment, also the EU is developing a Global Commons policy, in which the EUMSS and its Arctic policies occupy an important place. To tease out what characterizes the policies the EU is developing in relation to the maritime Global Commons, two hypotheses are explored and applied in a study of these two cases: First, that the EU’s policies are oriented towards safeguarding access to the Global Commons high seas areas for economic and/or security-related reasons and, second, that the EU maritime Global Commons policies are oriented towards global regulation to secure a sustainable environmental development, in line with a humanitarian foreign policy model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
The analysis relies on the following sources: First, written data, containing all official EU documents on EU Arctic policies and the EUMSS from the different EU institutions (2008–2016), other studies and reports that were conducted, as well as informal working documents from our key informants, both on the broader EUMSS and on specific EU Arctic policies. These data were triangulated with altogether 30 interviews across member states and EU institutions conducted between 2010 and 2016. To trace developments over time, some were interviewed several times.
References
Battarbee, K., & Fossum, J. E. (Eds.). (2014). The Arctic contested. Brussels: PIE-Peter Lang.
Boffey, D., & Nessen, A. (2017, June). China and EU strengthen promise to Paris deal with US poised to step away. The Guardian 1. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/31/china-eu-climate-lead-paris-agreement
Bosselmann, K. (2015). Earth governance. Trusteeship of the global commons. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bretherton, C., & Vogler, D. (2006). The European Union as a global actor (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Checkel, J. T. (2006). Tracing causal mechanisms. International Studies Review, 8(2), 362–370.
Commission. (2007, October 10). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union. COM(2007) 575 final, Brussels.
Commission and EEAS. (2014). Joint communication to the European Parliament and the Council. For an open and secure global maritime domain: Elements for a European Union maritime security strategy. JOIN/2014/09 final, Brussels.
Commission and the EEAS. (2016). Joint communication to the European Parliament and the Council. An integrated European Union policy for the Arctic, JOIN (2016) 21 final, Brussels.
Council. (2016, June). A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy. Brussels.
Council (2014a). European Union maritime security strategy. 11205/14. Brussels.
Council (2014b). European Union maritime security strategy (EUMSS) – Action plan. 17002/14. Brussels.
Council (2014c). Council conclusions on developing a European Union Policy towards the Arctic Region. Brussels.
Council (2016a). Conclusions on the Arctic as adopted by the Council on 20 June 2016. 10400/16 COEST. Brussels.
Council (2016b, October 17). Council conclusions on the global strategy on the European Union’s foreign and security policy. Foreign Affairs Council, Press Release 589/16, Brussels.
Deitelhoff, N. (2009). The discursive process of legalisation: Charting Islands of persuasion in the ICC case. International Organization, 63, 33–65.
Denmark, A. M. (2013). Forging a new type of great power relations in the global commons. American Foreign Policy Interests, 35(3), 129–136.
EEAS. (2015). EU Arctic policy. Available at http://eeas.europa.eu/arctic_region/index_en.htm
Eliaeson, S. (2002). Max Weber’s methodologies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Eriksen, E. O. (2006). The EU – A cosmopolitan polity. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 252–269.
Eriksen, E. O. (2009). The cosmopolitan dimension. In E. O. Eriksen (Ed.), The unfinished democratization of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eriksen, E. O., & Weigård, J. (2003). Understanding Habermas. On communicative action and deliberative democracy. London: Continuum.
European Parliament. (2014). European Parliament resolution on the EU strategy for the Arctic. (2013/2595(RSP)). Strasbourg.
European Parliament. (2017). Legislative train schedule: Europe as a stronger global actor. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-europe-as-a-stronger-global-actor/file-integrated-arctic-policy. Accessed November 2017.
Falkner, R. (2007). The political economy of ‘normative power’ Europe: EU environmental leadership in international biotechnology regulation. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(4), 507–526.
Fossum, J. E. (2002). Constitution making in the European Union. Chapter 6. In E. O. Eriksen & J. E. Fossum (Eds.), Democracy in the European Union: Integration through deliberation? London: Routledge.
Germond, B. (2015). The maritime dimension of European security. Seapower and the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grady, J. (2015, August 28). Report: New forum needed to negotiate Arctic security concerns. USNI News.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Held, D., Hervey, A., & Theros, M. (Eds.). (2011). The governance of climate change. Science, economics, politics and ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hyde-Price, A. (2008). A ‘tragic actor?’ A realist perspective on ‘ethical power Europe’. International Affairs, 84(1), 29–44.
Jokela, J. (2015). Arctic governance. In J. Jokela (Ed.), Arctic security matters. ISS report no. 24, 35–42. Available at http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Report_24_Arctic_matters.pdf
Kluth, M. F., & Pilegaard, J. (2011). Balancing beyond the horizon? Explaining aggregate EU Naval Military capability changes in a neo-realist perspective. European Security, 20, 45–64.
Kraska, J., & Baker, B. (2014). Emerging arctic challenges. Policy Brief, Center for a New American Security.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1995). E. H. Carr vs idealism: The battle rages on. International Relations, 19(2), 139–152.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: Norton and Company.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014, September/October). Why the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault: The liberal delusions that provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs. Available at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/chapters/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault
Missiroli, A. (2015). Foreword. In J. Jokela (Ed.), Arctic security matters. ISS report no. 24. Available at http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Report_24_Arctic_matters.pdf
Moravcsik, A. (2010). Europe: Rising superpower in a bipolar world. In A. Alexandroff & A. Cooper (Eds.), Rising states, rising institutions. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Posen, B. (2003). Command of the commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. hegemony. International Security, 28(1), 5–46.
Posen, B. R. (2006). European Union security and defense policy: Response to unipolarity? Security Studies, 15(2), 149–186.
Riddervold, M. (2010). ‘A matter of principle?’ EU foreign policy in the International Labour Organization. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(4), 581–598.
Riddervold, M. (2011). Finally flexing its muscles? Atalanta – The EU’s naval military operation against piracy. European Security, 20(3), 385–404.
Risse, T. (2004). Global governance and communicative action. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 288–313.
Shackelford, S. J. (2008). The tragedy of the common heritage of mankind. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 27, 101–120.
Sjursen, H. (2002). Why expand? The question of legitimacy and justification in the EU’s enlargement policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(3), 491–513.
Sjursen, H. (2006). What kind of power: European foreign policy in perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 167–327. Special issue.
Sjursen, H. (2007). Integration without democracy? Three conceptions of European security policy in transformation. In Eriksen & Fossum (Eds.), RECON, theory in practice, RECON report no 8, 197–228.
Stang, G. (2013). Global commons: Between cooperation and competition. ISS brief, 17/2013.
Till, G. (2015). The new U.S. Maritime strategy. Another view from outside. Naval War College Review, 2015, 68(4).
UNEP. (2016). United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Environmental Law and Conventions. http://www.unep.org/delc/GlobalCommons/tabid/54404/
US Defence. (2015). Sea services release revised maritime strategy U.S. Navy Chief of information office. http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/604272
US Department of state. (2017). Arctic. Available at https://www.state.gov/e/oes/ocns/opa/arc/. Accessed November 2017.
USMSS. (2015, March). Forward. Engaged. Ready. A cooperative strategy for 21th century seapower. http://www.navy.mil/local/maritime/150227-CS21R-Final.pdf
Walt, S. M. (2014). Would you die for that country? Foreign Policy, March 24.
Waltz, K. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5–41.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Riddervold, M. (2018). A Maritime Global Commons Power in the Making? On the Characteristics of EU Policies Towards the High Seas: The Arctic and the Maritime Security Strategy. In: The Maritime Turn in EU Foreign and Security Policies . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66598-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66598-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66597-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66598-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)