On Monday, the Council of the European Union decided to launch an international military mission in support of UN peace-keeping missions in Darfur, Sudan. The Council conclusions stated i.a.:
“8. The Council launched the military bridging operation EUFOR Tchad/RCA. It authorised the
EU operation commander, with immediate effect, to release the activation order in order to execute the deployment of the forces and start the execution of the mission. The Council reaffirms its full commitment to contribute to the implementation of the UNSC-Resolution 1778 (2007) which authorises the deployment in Chad and Central African Republic of a multidimensional presence, including the EU providing the military element of it. In accordance with this resolution, the EU conducts this military bridging operation for a period of 12 months from the declaration of Initial Operational Capability which is planned to be reached in March 2008. A mid mandate review after 6 months, conducted in conjunction with the UN, will assess the need for a possible UN follow-on capability.”
According to the Council factsheet 14 EU member states will be present in the field and 22 at Operations Headquarters.
***
As we see, international missions – military and civilian – are not new to the common security and defence policy (CSDP) of the EU.
This operation, too, is a coalition of willing and able member state, even a broad one, with at least a token representation of more than two thirds of them.
The Lisbon Treaty clarifies the basic Treaty provisions on CSDP operations, but more than creating new rules it is a codification of existing (and evolving) practice, where the European Union acts to enhance peace and stability in troubled regions.
***
In the Treaty of Lisbon the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) offers us one of its new and unmaimed Articles in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) Article 28c (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/35).
50) The following new Articles 28 B to 28 E shall be inserted:
-----
Article 28c
1. Within the framework of the decisions adopted in accordance with Article 28 B, the Council may entrust the implementation of a task to a group of Member States which are willing and have the necessary capability for such a task. Those Member States, in association with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall agree among themselves on the management of the task.
2. Member States participating in the task shall keep the Council regularly informed of its progress on their own initiative or at the request of another Member State. Those States shall inform the Council immediately should the completion of the task entail major consequences or require amendment of the objective, scope and conditions determined for the task in the decisions referred to in paragraph 1. In such cases, the Council shall adopt the necessary decisions.
***
In the existing TEU the CSDP missions mentioned in Article 17(2) TEU (latest consolidated version OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/17), the Petersberg tasks, form the basis for the evolved CSDP Section in the Lisbon Treaty.
Article 17(2)
2. Questions referred to in this Article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.
***
The Convention fathered the rules on tasks entrusted to a group of member states in Article III-211 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/69):
Article III-211
1. Within the framework of the European decisions adopted in accordance with Article III-210, the Council of Ministers may entrust the implementation of a task to a group of Member States having the necessary capability and the desire to undertake the task. Those Member States in association with the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall agree between themselves on the management of the task.
2. The Council of Ministers shall be regularly informed by the Member States participating in the task of its progress. Should the completion of the task involve major new consequences or require amendment of the objective, scope and conditions for implementation adopted by the Council of Ministers under Article III-210, the Member States participating shall refer the matter to the Council of Ministers forthwith. In such cases, the Council of Ministers shall adopt the necessary European decisions.
***
The IGC 2004 was the mother of the modified Article III-310 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe:
Article III-310
1. Within the framework of the European decisions adopted in accordance with Article III-309, the Council may entrust the implementation of a task to a group of Member States which are willing and have the necessary capability for such a task. Those Member States, in association with the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, shall agree among themselves on the management of the task.
2. Member States participating in the task shall keep the Council regularly informed of its progress on their own initiative or at the request of another Member State. Those States shall inform the Council immediately should the completion of the task entail major consequences or require amendment of the objective, scope and conditions determined for the task in the European decisions referred to in paragraph 1. In such cases, the Council shall adopt the necessary European decisions.
***
The child, Reform Treaty Article 28c TEU, is almost a clone of its mother.
The CSDP provisions have to be read in conjunction. Article 28a TEU forms the background, with 28a(4) requiring a unanimous Council decision to launch a mission, and 28a(5) offering the option to entrust a task to a group of member states. Article 28b TEU describes the various missions – the expanded Petersberg tasks – and the contents to be settled in the Council decision. (Read the two previous posts.)
Article 28c TEU tries to strike a balance between the European Union as a whole and the group of member states which actually implements the task.
The operation is launched in the name of the EU, with the Council defining the objectives, the scope and the general conditions of the mission.
Based on this authorisation, the coalition then agrees on the management of the task, in association with the High Representative.
Basically, the ‘coalition of the willing and able’ runs the operation, and the rest of the member states (Council) only have a right to be informed.
If the mission runs into trouble, or if other major changes are needed, the Council takes on the role of decision maker.
Ralf Grahn
Sources:
Council of the European Union: Council conclusions, General Affairs and External Relations, 28 January 2008, 5624/08, Provisional version (p. 12-15)
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/gena/98460.pdf
European Union Council Secretariat: Background: EU Military Operation in Eastern Chad and North Eastern Central African Republic (EUFOR Tchad/RCA), January 2008 (p. 2)
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/98416.pdf
Showing posts with label mission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mission. Show all posts
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
Monday, 14 January 2008
EU Treaty of Lisbon: Operational CFSP decisions
Well-meaning declarations are not enough, if the European Union wants to make this world a safer place. Concrete, operational action is needed. These decisions are presently known as joint actions. If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, these decisions will be known as decisions.
***
The existing Article 14 Treaty on European Union (TEU; latest consolidated version OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E) says:
“Article 14
1. The Council shall adopt joint actions. Joint actions shall address specific situations where operational action by the Union is deemed to be required. They shall lay down their objectives, scope, the means to be made available to the Union, if necessary their duration, and the conditions for their implementation.
2. If there is a change in circumstances having a substantial effect on a question subject to joint action, the Council shall review the principles and objectives of that action an take the necessary decisions. As long as the Council has not acted, the joint action shall stand.
3. Joint actions shall commit the Member States in the positions they adopt and in the conduct of their activity.
4. The Council may request the Commission to submit to it any appropriate proposals relating to the common foreign and security policy to ensure the implementation of a joint action.
5. Whenever there is any plan to adopt a national position or take national action pursuant to a joint action, information shall be provided in time to allow, if necessary, for prior consultations within the Council. The obligation to provide prior information shall not apply to measures which are merely a national transposition of Council decisions.
6. In cases of imperative need arising from changes in the situation and failing a Council decision, Member States may take the necessary measures as a matter of urgency having regard to the general objectives of the joint action. The Member State concerned shall inform the Council immediately of any such measures.
7. Should there be any major difficulties in implementing a joint action, a Member State shall refer them to the Council which shall discuss them and seek appropriate solutions. Such solutions shall not run counter to the objectives of the joint action or impair its effectiveness.”
***
In Article III-198 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169) the Convention used the term ‘European decision’ instead of ‘joint action’, but there was little substantive change. This was taken over in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310) Article III-297.
In the Reform Treaty there are no ‘European decisions’, nor are there ‘joint actions’, just ‘decisions referred to in paragraph 1'.
***
A few remarks by your glossator:
Formally, there may be reasons to have just ‘decisions’, but in practice there is a need for descriptive terms. If there are no ‘joint actions’ or ‘common positions’, these have to be described in another manner.
Well, what are these ‘joint actions’ or operational decisions?
Some examples: The Council has lately repealed its joint action on the EU civilian-military supporting action to the African Union missions in the Darfur region of Sudan and in Somalia, published an annual report on the joint action to combat the spread of small arms and light weapons, amended the joint action extending the mandate for the EU Special Representative for Sudan and amended its joint action on establishing an EU Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point.
Concrete action, on the ground; these terms give an indication of what is meant by operational decisions.
***
The Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306) amends Article 14 TEU. The consolidated version of Article 14 TEU should read like this:
“Article 14
1. Where the international situation requires operational action by the Union, the Council shall adopt the necessary decisions. They shall lay down their objectives, scope, the means to be made available to the Union, if necessary their duration, and the conditions for their implementation.
If there is a change in circumstances having a substantial effect on a question subject to such a decision, the Council shall review the principles and objectives of that decision and take the necessary decisions.
2. Decisions referred to in paragraph 1 shall commit the Member States in the positions they adopt and in the conduct of their activity.
3. Whenever there is any plan to adopt a national position or take national action pursuant to a decision as referred to in paragraph 1, information shall be provided by the Member State concerned in time to allow, if necessary, for prior consultations within the Council. The obligation to provide prior information shall not apply to measures which are merely a national transposition of Council decisions.
4. In cases of imperative need arising from changes in the situation and failing a review of the Council decision as referred to in paragraph 1, Member States may take the necessary measures as a matter of urgency having regard to the general objectives of that decision. The Member State concerned shall inform the Council immediately of any such measures.
5. Should there be any major difficulties in implementing a decision as referred to in this Article, a Member State shall refer them to the Council which shall discuss them and seek appropriate solutions. Such solutions shall not run counter to the objectives of the decision referred to in paragraph 1 or impair its effectiveness.
***
Our next stop will be decisions of the kind until now called common positions.
Ralf Grahn
***
The existing Article 14 Treaty on European Union (TEU; latest consolidated version OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E) says:
“Article 14
1. The Council shall adopt joint actions. Joint actions shall address specific situations where operational action by the Union is deemed to be required. They shall lay down their objectives, scope, the means to be made available to the Union, if necessary their duration, and the conditions for their implementation.
2. If there is a change in circumstances having a substantial effect on a question subject to joint action, the Council shall review the principles and objectives of that action an take the necessary decisions. As long as the Council has not acted, the joint action shall stand.
3. Joint actions shall commit the Member States in the positions they adopt and in the conduct of their activity.
4. The Council may request the Commission to submit to it any appropriate proposals relating to the common foreign and security policy to ensure the implementation of a joint action.
5. Whenever there is any plan to adopt a national position or take national action pursuant to a joint action, information shall be provided in time to allow, if necessary, for prior consultations within the Council. The obligation to provide prior information shall not apply to measures which are merely a national transposition of Council decisions.
6. In cases of imperative need arising from changes in the situation and failing a Council decision, Member States may take the necessary measures as a matter of urgency having regard to the general objectives of the joint action. The Member State concerned shall inform the Council immediately of any such measures.
7. Should there be any major difficulties in implementing a joint action, a Member State shall refer them to the Council which shall discuss them and seek appropriate solutions. Such solutions shall not run counter to the objectives of the joint action or impair its effectiveness.”
***
In Article III-198 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169) the Convention used the term ‘European decision’ instead of ‘joint action’, but there was little substantive change. This was taken over in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310) Article III-297.
In the Reform Treaty there are no ‘European decisions’, nor are there ‘joint actions’, just ‘decisions referred to in paragraph 1'.
***
A few remarks by your glossator:
Formally, there may be reasons to have just ‘decisions’, but in practice there is a need for descriptive terms. If there are no ‘joint actions’ or ‘common positions’, these have to be described in another manner.
Well, what are these ‘joint actions’ or operational decisions?
Some examples: The Council has lately repealed its joint action on the EU civilian-military supporting action to the African Union missions in the Darfur region of Sudan and in Somalia, published an annual report on the joint action to combat the spread of small arms and light weapons, amended the joint action extending the mandate for the EU Special Representative for Sudan and amended its joint action on establishing an EU Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point.
Concrete action, on the ground; these terms give an indication of what is meant by operational decisions.
***
The Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306) amends Article 14 TEU. The consolidated version of Article 14 TEU should read like this:
“Article 14
1. Where the international situation requires operational action by the Union, the Council shall adopt the necessary decisions. They shall lay down their objectives, scope, the means to be made available to the Union, if necessary their duration, and the conditions for their implementation.
If there is a change in circumstances having a substantial effect on a question subject to such a decision, the Council shall review the principles and objectives of that decision and take the necessary decisions.
2. Decisions referred to in paragraph 1 shall commit the Member States in the positions they adopt and in the conduct of their activity.
3. Whenever there is any plan to adopt a national position or take national action pursuant to a decision as referred to in paragraph 1, information shall be provided by the Member State concerned in time to allow, if necessary, for prior consultations within the Council. The obligation to provide prior information shall not apply to measures which are merely a national transposition of Council decisions.
4. In cases of imperative need arising from changes in the situation and failing a review of the Council decision as referred to in paragraph 1, Member States may take the necessary measures as a matter of urgency having regard to the general objectives of that decision. The Member State concerned shall inform the Council immediately of any such measures.
5. Should there be any major difficulties in implementing a decision as referred to in this Article, a Member State shall refer them to the Council which shall discuss them and seek appropriate solutions. Such solutions shall not run counter to the objectives of the decision referred to in paragraph 1 or impair its effectiveness.
***
Our next stop will be decisions of the kind until now called common positions.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
