Institutional coherence and implementation of Comprehensive Approach
Case: Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operations
Elisa Norvanto (207106) Pro-gradu tutkielma Sosiaalipolitiikka Itä-Suomen yliopisto Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta Huhtikuu 2016
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta Yhteiskuntatieteiden laitos Tekijä
Elisa Norvanto Työn nimi
Institutionaalinen koherenssi ja kokonaisvaltaisen lähestymistavan implementointi
Tapaustutkimus - Euroopan turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikan kriisinhallintamissiot ja -operaatiot Oppiaine
Sosiaalipolitiikka
Työn laji
Pro gradu-tutkielma Aika
Huhtikuu 2016
Sivumäärä
113 sivua, 7 liitettä (10 sivua) Tutkielman ohjaaja/ohjaajat
Veli-Matti Poutanen ja Jari Salonen Tiivistelmä
Tutkimus tarkastelee Euroopan unionin turvallisuusinstituutioita Lissabonin sopimuksen jälkeisessä kontekstissa, lisäten ymmärrystä siitä miten tämän hetkinen turvallisuusarkkitehtuuri vaikuttaa EU:n kokonaisvaltaisen lähestymistavan implementointiin sen sotilas- ja siviilikriisinhallintamissioissa.
Kokonaisvaltaisella lähestymistavalla ymmärretään EU:n kykyä integroidusti hyödyntää sen sotilas- ja siviilikriisinhallintainstrumentteja vastatakseen ulkopuolisiin uhkiin. Tutkimus pohjautuu ajatukselle, että instituutiot vaikuttavat oleellisesti EU:n kriisinhallinnan tehokkuuteen. Lisäksi tarkoituksena on lisätä ymmärrystä siitä, miten siviili-sotilas yhteistoiminta on organisoitu unionin turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikan (ETPP) viitekehyksessä. Teoreettinen viitekehys tämän moninaisen järjestelmän ymmärtämiseksi rakentuu neo- institutionaalisesta käsityksestä, politiikan tutkimuksesta sekä organisaatiotieteistä.
Tämä on laadullinen tutkimus, jossa aihetta on käsitelty laaja-alaisesti kirjallisuuskatsauksen ja tapaustutkimuksen keinoin. Tapaustutkimuksella pyrittiin vastaamaan työn päätutkimuskysymyksiin tarkastellen, miten tämänhetkinen ETPP -arkkitehtuuri vaikuttaa instituutioden väliseen koherenssiin sekä sitä kautta kokonaisvaltaisen lähestymistavan implementointiin, ja mitkä institutionaaliset elementit vaikeuttavat osapuolten välistä yhteistoimintaa. Tutkimuksessa on hyödynnetty monitapaustutkimusstrategiaa siten, että tapaustutkimus koostuu kolmesta tapauksesta, joissa EU:n siviili- ja sotilasmissiot toimivat samalla alueella yhtäaikaisesti. Tapaustutkimuksen primaarimateriaali koostuu 27:stä asiantuntijahaastattelusta ja 4:stä kohderyhmäkeskustelusta. Analyysin edetessä haastattelu- ja ryhmäkeskustelumateriaalia täydennettiin muulla relevantilla lähdemateriaalilla. Analyysissä on hyödynnettiin sekä aineisto- että teorialähtöistä protokollaa.
Tutkimuksen tulokset osoittivat, että EU:n nykyinen instituutiorakenne ei mahdollista yhteisön kriisinhallinnan suorituskykyjen täyttä hyödyntämistä. Taloudelliset ja poliittiset haasteet yhdistettynä hajautettuihin suunnittelu- ja ohjausrakenteisiin sekä tämän hetkiseen organisaatiokulttuuriin vaikeuttavat positiivisten synergioiden hyödyntämistä siviili- ja sotilastoimijoiden välillä. Vaikka nykyiset rakenteet eivät suorastaan estä yhteistoimintaa, tulokset osoittivat että ilman yhtenäisiä hallintorakenteita, tehokkaita koordinaatiomekanismeja, velvoittavia sääntöjä tai poliittista sitoutumista jäsenmaiden taholta, on kokonaisvaltaisen lähestymistavan implementointi tapauskohtaista riippuen vahvasti yksilöiden motivaatiosta ja halusta tehdä keskinäistä yhteistyötä, sekä koordinoida toimintojaan toistensa välillä.
Asiasanat
koherenssi, kokonaisvaltainen lähestymistapa, siviili-sotilas yhteistoiminta, Euroopan Unioni, neo- institutionalismi, kriisinhallinta, Euroopan turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikka, politiikan implementointi Säilytyspaikka Itä-Suomen yliopiston kirjasto
Muita tietoja
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Department of Social Sciences Author
Elisa Norvanto Title
Institutional coherence and implementation of Comprehensive Approach Case: Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operations Academic subject
Social policy
Type of thesis Master’s Thesis Date
April 2016
Pages
113 pages, 7 annexes (10 pages) Abstract
This study discusses the European Union post- Lisbon Treaty security architecture aiming at drawing an under- standing of the role the institutional set-up plays for the implementation of EU’s Comprehensive Approach to its crisis management missions and operations. In this study, Comprehensive Approach is understood as inte- gration of EU’s civilian and military crisis management instruments to treat external threats. The primary argu- ment of this study is that institutions matter for the effectiveness of the EU’s crisis management interventions.
Thereby, this study aims to increase understanding of the civil-military structures in the context of European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). To better understand the role of the institutions in the puzzle of EU’s external actions, the theories from neo-institutionalism, policy implementation and organizational studies were utilized.
This study combined a literature review and a case study method aiming at understanding how the current CSDP architecture effects on the coherence and thereby on the implementation of Comprehensive Approach in its CSDP missions and what are the key sources of incoherence within the current CSDP institutions. The study adopted a qualitative research approach using multiple-cases to respond to the primary research questions set for this study, drawing an overall understanding of the institutional realities in the cases where civilian and military missions and operations co-exist in the same region. The primary data was collected during a period of July – October 2015 through key informant interviews and focus group discussions. The empirical data was compelled by relevant literature. Data was analyzed by combining inductive and deductive reasoning.
The analysis of the case study showed that the current institutional set-up does not enable EU to use the full potential of its crisis management capabilities. The financial and political constrains together with fragmented structures from mission planning to conduct and control elements, together with insufficient coordination pro- cedures, and organizational culture, all hamper the facilitation of the interaction at the areas where the positive synergies could be searched. Although the current institutional set-up does not directly counteract the civil- military interaction, in the absence of joint structures, or effective coordination mechanisms, or regulations as well as political commitment, the implementation of Comprehensive Approach takes place in ad-hoc manner, varying case by case depending very much on the individual’s motivation and willingness to cooperate and coordinate.
Keywords
coherence, comprehensive approach, civil-military interaction, European Union, neo-institutionalism, crisis management, Common Security and Defence Policy, policy implementation
Archive location University of Eastern Finland Library Additional information
CONTENT
CONTENT ... i
1 INTRODUCTION... 1
1.1 Research Framework ... 1
1.1.1 Background of the study and previous studies ... 2
1.1.2 Research questions ... 4
1.1.3 Relevance of Research for Social Sciences ... 5
1.2 Data and Methodology ... 7
1.2.1 Making sense of the concepts ... 7
1.2.2 Case study ... 7
1.2.3 Data collection and research process ... 10
1.2.4 Analysis ... 17
1.3 Discussion on the validity of the study ... 19
1.4 Structure of the study ... 22
2 INSTITUTIONS AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ... 24
2.1 Neo- institutionalism ... 24
2.1.1 Rational Institutionalism ... 25
2.1.2 Historical Institutionalism ... 26
2.1.3 Sociological Institutionalism ... 26
2.2 Policy implementation ... 27
2.2.1 Perspectives to policy implementation ... 27
2.2.2 Facilitators ... 30
2.2.3 Barriers ... 31
2.3 Institutional settings ... 32
3 COHERENCE IN EUROPEAN UNION COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY ... 36
3.1 A quest of Coherence in European Foreign and Security Policy ... 36
3.1.1 Defining coherence ... 37
3.1.2 Categorizing coherence ... 38
3.2 Measuring coherence ... 40
3.4 Coherence and EU ‘actorness’ ... 43
4 EUROPEAN UNION APPROACH TO CRISIS ... 45
4.1 Evolved nature of crisis management missions ... 45
4.2 European Union and multidimensional approach to crisis ... 46
4.3 Common Security and Defence Policy mission and operations ... 47
4.3.1 Civilian crisis management missions ... 49
4.3.2 Military crisis management in the EU ... 49
4.4 Complexities of the civil-military relations ... 50
4.5 Determining appropriate scope of interaction in crisis management setting ... 51
4.6 Enhancing coherence within the European Union civilian and military spheres ... 53
4.6.1 Legal remedies ... 54
4.6.2 Lisbon Treaty and institutional reform ... 58
4.6.3 Political initiatives ... 59
5 CASE: COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY MISSIONS AND OPERATIONS ... 62
6 ANALYSIS ... 68
6.1 Institutional coherence in administrative and support functions ... 69
6.1.1 Key organizations involved in the planning and conduct of the missions and operation ... 69
6.1.2 Administrative procedures ... 73
6.1.3 Financial management - procurement ... 76
6.1.4 Information sharing and reporting ... 77
6.1.5 Training and Recruitment... 79
6.2 Technical Functions... 86
6.2.1 Planning of the activities... 86
6.2.2 Coordination mechanisms ... 88
6.2.3 Lessons process and institutional learning ... 91
6.3 Culture and Structures ... 94
6.3.1 Governance approach ... 95
6.3.2 Leadership style and organizational culture ... 97
6.4 Resources ... 101
6.4.1 Human Resources ... 101
6.4.2 Financial resources ... 103
7 DISCUSSION ... 106
7.1 Achievements and key challenges ... 107
7.2 Conclusions ... 113
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 114
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ... 127
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ... 128
FIGURES Figure 1. Framework of the study ... 4
Figure 2. Data collection ... 10
Figure 3. Data analysis process ... 19
Figure 4. Improving the EU Comprehensive Approach ... 52
Figure 5 EU’s Comprehensive Approach to Crisis... 61
Figure 6. Decision making procedure ... 73
Figure 7. Civilian and Military Command and Control options ... 95
Figure 8. Financing CSDP Missions and Operation ... 104
TABLES Table 1. Interviewees ... 12
Table 2. Key institutional components ... 34
Table 3. Key components of the institutions ... 69 ANNEXES
Annex 1. Invitation to participate to an interview
Annex 2. Consent letter to participate in research on civil-military synergies in CSDP missions and operations
Annex 3. Theme interview
Annex 4. Key functions of the EUFOR Althea and EUPM
Annex 5. Key functions of EUTM Mali, EUCAP Sahel Mali and EUCAP Sahel Niger Annex 6. Key functions of EUANFOR Atalanta, EUTM Somalia and EUCAP Nestor Annex 7. Acronyms
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research Framework
Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a gradual shift from territorial, military and state- centric understanding of security towards a de-territorialised civil-military, and human-centred perspective (Kaldor, Martin & Selchow, 2007). This shift has re- flected also on the international interventions into states emerging from conflicts. The form of the intervention has moved from traditional military peacekeeping to complex peace building and stabilization tasks that require coordination among a complex set of civilian and military actors (Schroeder, 2011, 129).
The European Union is a relatively new comer to the field of crisis intervention. Never- theless, since its establishment, the Union has expressed its desire to ‘speak with a one voice’ acting as a coherent actor on the world stage. The objectives of the Union’s for- eign and security ambitions, as defined by the Treaty of the European Union (1992), in- clude the safeguarding of the Union’s common values, its interest and integrity, the strengthening of peace and security, both within the Union and on the international stage, and the promotion of international co-operation, democracy, the rule of law and human rights (TEU, title V). To achieve the set objectives, the Common Security De- fence Policy (CSDP)1, was established, enabling the EU to directly contribute on the peacekeeping and crisis management by deploying its civilian and military instruments (Matthiessen, 2013).
Although CSDP is believed to be a good way to promote peace and the European values in conflict stricken areas, there is only limited research made on the factual impact of these interventions on the ground. As the formulation of the EU Global Strategy (EU Global Strategy, 2016) is ongoing the issue of the EU’s role and capabilities to contrib- ute on the global security challenges are under an assessment. In addition, due to recent fiscal crisis there is an increased need to do more with fewer resources, which has also
1 Before the adaptation of the Lisbon Treaty the CSDP was known as European Security and Defence Pol- icy (ESDP).
put public pressure on the EU to show the outcomes of its crisis management efforts.
Hence, there is now a rising interested in gaining a better understanding on the impact of the CSDP and its efficiency.
CSDP has been identified to be the key foreign policy and security instrument, drawing together civilian and military competences, yet has its potential been fully exploited?
The Comprehensive Approach is believed to be an effective way to manage crisis, but to what extent this approach is institutionalized within the EU? Purposeful coordination and cooperation between the different EU actors, namely between civilian and military ones, is perceived to be of utmost importance for the coherence and efficiency of the EU’s crisis management effort, but how this institutional coherence has actually been promoted within the EU’s crisis management institutions? To ensure that the EU is ‘us- ing the full potential of the existing capabilities’ to respond to a crisis in a coherent and resource efficient manner more research should be made to understand the key factors enabling and preventing the implementation of the Comprehensive Approach into CSDP.
1.1.1 Background of the study and previous studies
This study was conducted during July 2015 - April 2016. The material collected for the case study was realized as a part of a study titled ‘Review of civilian and military syner- gies’ (National Defence University, 2016) which is part of a European Commission Funded research project aiming at enhancing the effectiveness of the European Union conflict prevention capabilities (IECEU- Project 2015). The aim of that study was to re- view the current practices of civil-military synergies as well as, identify the barriers and enablers for further civil-military cooperation and coordination within the EU. In addi- tion, the review mapped out the cooperation between the EU and other relevant interna- tional organizations involved in the peace support operations.
Since the objective of the study, ‘Review of civilian and military synergies’, was only to draw an overall understanding of the existing civil-military synergies within CSDP, the study did not build understanding on what role the EU institutions and intra-institutional
coordination play in the current crisis management setting. Nevertheless, several schol- ars have argued that the institutional settings and organizations within them play a cen- tral role for the policy outcome; its effective implementation and goal attainment (see for example Portela & Ruabe, 2012; Schroeder, 2011; Koenig, 2016). From this premises, it can be preassumed that EU’s security institutions also play a role for the effectiveness of its conflict prevention capabilities, thus being an essential element to be included in impact evaluations. Thus, when conducting the study on ‘Review of civilian and military synergies’ I realized that in order to enhance the effectiveness of the EU’s crisis management interventions, there is also a need to learn more about how the EU currently seeks to implement its Comprehensive Approach through civil-military coop- eration and coordination within CSDP institutions.
Comprehensive Approach is a vague concept and several scholars have attempted to as- sess its operationalization within the European external actions. These studies have usu- ally taken a broad approach to this concept aiming at assessing the consistency of all the European Union foreign policies, strategies and instruments, as well as, the Member States activities’. From these premises EU’s approach to conflicts can be understood to imply not only the integrated deployment of EU instruments and resources, but also a shared responsibility of both EU actors at different levels and Member States in their capitals and in the missions and operation. The results of these studies have often shown that the EU faces challenges to implement its ambitious political goals, merely due to its political and resource constraints (see for example Faria, 2014). In multi-layered gov- ernance, individual Member States and their own policy priorities tend to play a role also in goal attainment of the EU’s approach to international affairs.
Rather than contributing to further discussion of the implementation of this broad notion of Comprehensive Approach, which foremost implies vertical and horizontal coherence of the European security architecture, I perceive that there should be more studies focus- ing on the intra-institutional coordination of the European Union foreign affairs. This is because there is currently no single institutional body or mechanism that has a lead role in supporting and coordinating the EU Comprehensive Approach. However, all the EU institutional actors- are they civilian or military- in their respective roles and competen- cies have important roles to play for the implementation of this norm. They all have a
shared responsibility in driving a more coherent and integrated approach to EU external action in the current institutional set-up. Based on these premises, the framework used for this study is outlined in the Figure 1.
Figure 1. Framework of the study 1.1.2 Research questions
The primary argument of this study is that institutions matter for the effectiveness of the EU’s crisis management interventions. Thereby, aim of this study is to increase the un- derstanding of the civil-military structures in the context of Common Security and De- fence Policy (CSDP). As the ultimate goal of Comprehensive Approach is to ensure the effectiveness of the external actions through consistency of the activities and resource efficiency, the notion of coherence provides a good starting point for the analysis. Co- herence is seen as the guiding principle for the implementation of the EU’s foreign poli- cies and thus is an important point of reference for this analysis. As I wanted to under- stand the role of the institutions in the puzzle of external actions, I perceived that princi- ples from neo-institutionalism, policy implementation and organizational studies could be useful to enhance understanding on how to assess the institutional coherence within the EU’s security institutions.
From these premises this study combines a literature review and a case study methods aiming at reaching the aim of this study. The case study method is used to answer the primary research questions set for this study, which are;
1. How does the current CSDP architecture effect on the coherence and thereby on the implementation of the EU’s Comprehensive Approach in its CSDP missions and operations?
2. What are the key sources of incoherence within the current CSDP institutions?
The literature review aims to answer the following sub-research questions;
3. Why the notion of coherence is a central element in the European Foreign Policy discourse?
4. Why enhancing the civilian and military interaction in crisis management mis- sions is promoted?
5. How the EU has sought to enhance the institutional coherence within its crisis management actors?
1.1.3 Relevance of Research for Social Sciences
The research focusing on European Union institutional coherence is highly relevant to the discipline of Social Sciences. Foremost, the European institutions play a central role in the implementation of the Community’s security agenda through its various conflict prevention and crisis management instruments. The Brussels-based bureaucracies are in charge of the planning and conduct of the crisis management initiatives, and thus they offer an interesting platform to study what role the existing institutional arrangements play for the coherence. This is because the coherence is seen as a paramount for effec- tiveness of the European Union crisis management efforts thereby also impacting on the Member State’s security environment. EU policies reflect to and influence the policies of its Member States, including Finland. The crisis management interventions require political and resource contributions from the Member States and the Common Security and Defence Policy engagements are also reflected to national decision-making, budget- ing and diplomatic relations. Thus it is particularly interesting to see to what extent the EU has succeeded in using the full potential of its Common Security and Defence Pol- icy, and what role the current institutional set-up has for the efficiency of this process.
This research is also timely for the discipline of social studies because it directly links to the larger debate regarding the increasing merger of the comprehensive security discus- sion within the European Union. The linkage is particularly relevant to the ongoing dis- cussion on the interconnectedness of internal and external security institutions, which considers that the line between these security providers is converging. As the contempo- rary security threats emerging from weak states- ranging from the terroristic threats to immigration crisis -have evolved it has become evident, that the policies designed at the international level have a direct impact to national security and on the lives of the peo- ple in Finland. The international community’s ability to respond to these challenges ef- fectively requires forming sufficient policies and ensuring that the policies are imple- mented appropriately. While this thesis does not specifically focus on the larger discus- sion around this Whole Government Approach (Nerg, 2015), it has to be noted here that this perception of the inter-connectedness between internal and external security institu- tion is inherent in the concept of civil-military interaction. While it is beyond the scope of this thesis to engage extensively in this debate it should be remembered that the ef- fectiveness of managing external crisis has a direct connection to the homeland security environment.
Although the substantial focus of this study is on EU and international relations, the aim is also to deepen the comprehension of the institutional-centric policy implementation assessment practise and how it can be used to understand vague and complex policy concepts. Lester & Goggin (1998) have characterized policy implementation “as a dis- tinct stage in the policy process, which is a unique since it represents the transformation of a policy idea or expectation to action aimed at solving social problems.” Understand- ing operationalization of the policy objectives and the role of the institutional actors is important for a Social Scientist. At its best these analysis can contribute on formulation of better policies by identifying critical differences between planned and actual imple- mentation as well as the potential barriers and facilitators for the implementation. Such analysis can be used to inform the policy makers and governmental actors for the future policy development and thereby contributing also to potential institutional reforms within national and international context.
1.2 Data and Methodology
1.2.1 Making sense of the concepts
Comprehensive Approach is understood as the coordination and cooperation between the civilian and military actors under the Common Security and Defence Policy. As the Comprehensive Approach in this context is about combining civilian and military in- struments for enhanced effectiveness of European Union conflict management efforts is coherence between the policies and actions also required. The notion of coherence in this context and for the purpose of this study is understood as a promotion of positive synergies, for which the absence of inconsistency between the activities, policies and procedures contributes to, but is not the only condition for the coherence (Hoffmeister, 2008, 161) of the overall approach to crisis. To better understand the elements related to the operationalization of this norm, this study takes a neo-institutional approach to the phenomenon and analyses the institutional coherence of the civil-military relations within the European Union crisis management institutions. In this study, institutions are understood as rules of behaviour that structure and constrain human interaction. They consist of formal rules but also of cognitive symbol systems which are formed in the in- teraction of the actors formulated within social interaction between the individuals and organisations (Schroeder, 2011, 38).
1.2.2 Case study
The study has adopted a qualitative research approach that aims to look at the imple- mentation of the Comprehensive Approach from a case-specific point of view. An ad- vantage of this method is that it enables to explore experiences, values, practices, and attitudes in depth and establish meaning for those concerned (Devine cited in Burnham,
& al. 2008, 247). Qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world, studying things in their natural settings while attempting to make sense of and interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (Denzin & Lin- coln, 2000). It can use various research methods and strategies to reach the objectives.
A case study is one commonly used qualitative inquiry method. (Simons, 2009, 14.)
Depending on the author, a case study can be referred as a method, a strategy or an ap- proach. (Simons, 2009, 3.) According to Craswell (1998, 61) a case can be perceived as
“an exploration of a bounded system that consist of a case or cases over time through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information rich in con- text.” In this research, a case study is understood as a research approach, which seeks to understand a complex system through qualitative data analysis (Yin, 2003, 2). There are different types of case studies. According to Yin (2003) they can be divided into; ex- planatory, exploratory, and descriptive studies.
Explanatory approach is typically used when the purpose of the study is to answer a question that sought to explain the presumed causal links in real-life intervention that are too complex for the survey or experimental strategies. The type selected will be guiding the overall study purpose. Exploratory type is used when the situation in which the intervention being assessed has no clear, single set of outcomes. Descriptive design, is applied to describe an intervention or phenomenon in the real-life context in which it occurred. (Yin, 2003, cited in Baxter & Jack, 2008, 546 -547.) As the focus of this study is on analysing the institutional coherence and the implementation of the Comprehen- sive Approach by describing the current practices as well as the main source of incoher- ence, the descriptive case study design was used. The focus of this study is on accu- rately describing the current institutional realities rather than on ‘proving’ any specific hypothesis or demonstrating relations between variables. As the main aim of this study is to draw an understanding of the civil-military interaction within the crisis manage- ment institution, as well as the main barriers to it, I perceived this study design to be an efficient method to reach these objectives.
Case study as a method seeks to provide a deep understanding of a particular phenome- non or event within its natural setting (Harling, 2002, 1). This method is often applied to the studies where generalizability of the results is less important, and the aim is in de- scribing a unique event or program, such as implementation of a programme or policy.
(Rose, Spinks & Canhoto, 2015, 3.) A common thread in defining a case study is plac- ing a boundary around some phenomenon of interest. According to Yin (2009, 19) case study research includes both single- and multiple-case studies. This means that case study can cover multiple cases and then draw a single set of ‘cross-case’ conclusions,
either by comparing several single case studies or generate generalizations based on the case studies (Yin 2009, 20).
For the purpose of this study I used multiple-cases all cases comprising of three settings where European Union civilian and military crisis management missions and operations existed parallel. Thus, the ‘case’ in this study is a setting where a civilian and military Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) mission is deployed to the same country or region. These cases are discussed further in chapter 5. This approach was used, be- cause I wanted to draw an overall understanding of the civil-military interaction in cases where both- civilian and military- CSDP instruments were deployed. Also citing data from literature, I sought to develop some generalizations regarding the institutional co- herence within the crisis management institution. Thus, this study does not compare these cases to each other, but the experiences from these missions and operations can help to understand the common features of the civil-military interaction on the strategic and operational level in the cases where the joint actions would be possible in theory.
The distinct advantage of this approach in comparison to a single-case design is that it is considered to be more compelling, and the overall study is more robust. Major disad- vantage is that in comparison to single case study-design this approach usually requires lots of resources and is often beyond the means of a single investigator. (Yin 2009, 54.) According to Yin (2003) a case study method is a particularly useful when the studied phenomenon is complex including several actors, procedures or assignments. The Euro- pean Union crisis management architecture can be considered as a unique case, because no other international actor has such instruments, or resources of 28 Member States at its disposal. Extensive analysis is needed in order to comerhen Unions’ multilevel gov- ernance, several instrument and institutions. Using a case study design offers me an op- portunity to study the complexities of civil-military interactions and institutional coher- ence in-depth in its real-life context. (Yin, 2009). Additional strength of this method is to be able to employ multiple sources of evidence to describe the key elements of a phe- nomenon in a specific situation or context.
A case study design is often criticized for being too subjective giving too much scope for the researcher’s own interpretations as well as not producing generalizable results,
and thereby cannot be used for example in policy-making. (Simons, 2009, 162, 169 - 170.) When selecting the methodology to achieve the research objectives set for this study I considered the criticism, yet came to conclusion that this design serves the best the purpose of this study. As the context in which the EU Comprehensive Approach is implemented is complex and unpredictable, a case study design is an effective method to draw an overall understanding of the institutional elements related to the institutional coherence and implementation of the approach. (Balbach, 1999, 1 - 5.)
1.2.3 Data collection and research process
This study aims to enhance understanding of the civil-military institutional settings in the context of European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Typical for the case study approach, this study seeks to draw a comprehensive picture of the subject in question. The Figure 2 below illustrates the information gathering for this study. The study is based on document reviews, key informant interviews of officials from Euro- pean External Action Services (EEAS), selected CSDP mission and operation staff and other officials, as well as focus group discussions.
Figure 2. Data collection
The research process started by building construction on European Union crisis man- agement architecture its various actors, instruments and processes. The key documents and studies shedding light into the subject were related to Comprehensive Approach, civil-military relations, and European foreign policy and crisis management mission and operation specific documents. After a careful desk review, interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with key officials working within crisis management mis- sion structures either in the Ministries, Brussels or in the conflict area. Then data gath- ered through key-informant interviews and focus group discussions were codified and categorized, intercepted and analysed. Literature, policy papers and missions specific reports were then used to compel, compare and validate the findings of the interviews and focus group discussions. Indeed, the key-informant interviews and focus group dis- cussions were appropriate data collection methods for this study, because they enabled me to grasp the individual’s experiences, believes and attitudes towards the civil-mili- tary interaction and appropriateness of the current institutional realities of the crisis management structures. (Morgan & Spanish, 1984.)
The availability of the data put boundaries to the extensity of the document review. It would have been useful to get in touch with the internal documents such as six- months reports, Mission implementation plans and other operation planning documents as well as data on finance and human resources. This data would have been essential in order to gain a better understanding on the procedures and resources allocated to the civil- mili- tary interaction within CSDP. In the absence of these documents, the aspects related to the allocation of resources to civil- military cooperation and coordination is based on the individuals’ perspectives of the matter.
As illustrated in Table 1, two levels of analysis were included to the data collection; po- litico- strategic level and operational- field level, both important for understanding of the crisis management institutions. To collect the information on the politico- strategic level, thirteen (13) officials out of which six (6) were working within EU’s military structures and seven (7) for civilian EU structures, were interviewed. To gain a better insight on the element at the operational- field level, fourteen (14) former or present CSDP missions/ operation staff members were interviewed. Ten (10) of them were from military missions and operations and four (4) from civilian.
Table 1. Interviewees
Respondent Cate- gory
Information Collected Number of Respond- ents
Military/
civilian
Planners and Deci- sionmakers
(Politico- strategic level)
EEAS officials who are directly working within CSDP missions and operations
government offi- cials who are cur- rently working within CSDP and EEAS
The current practices of the civil-military cooperation and coordination within CSDP.
Perception of the barriers and enablers to policy implementa- tion throughout the operation cycle.
Areas where civil-military syn- ergies would bring added-value.
13 Military 6
Civilian 7
CSDP mission/ operation staff
(operational- field level)
Senior level ex- perts who are currently work- ing for a CSDP mission/ opera- tion on the ground
Senior level ex- perts who have worked for a CSDP mission/
operation in the past
Coordination and reporting structures
Training on civil-military inter- action
Resources available and needed
Policies and guidelines used to facilitate cooperation and coor- dination
Perception of the barriers and enablers to civil- military coop- eration and coordination in the field
Areas where civil-military syn- ergies would bring added-value.
14 Military 10
Civilian 4
A common type of individual respondent interview is the key informant interview. A key informant is an individual, who as a result of their knowledge, previous experience or social status in a community has access to information valuable for the evaluator such as insights about the functioning of society, their problems and needs. (The World Bank, 2013.) Key informants are a source of information which can assist in under- standing the context of a program or project, or clarifying particular issues or problems.
As I wanted to understand the current institutional settings relevant for Common Secu- rity and Defence Policy missions and operations, a key informant was perceived to be someone who is currently working within External Actions Services or for selected
CSDP missions and operations. Organisations consist of individuals and these individu- als are the bureaucrats who are responsible for implementing the Comprehensive Ap- proach.
To get in touch with relevant individuals at the beginning of my research I contacted several governmental agencies in Finland and in several European countries and indi- viduals from CSDP missions and operations requesting them to forward me list of names and contact details of relevant people who could be interviewed for the study. As a result, I received altogether 62 names and I invited all of them to participate in an in- terview by email, face-to-face or phone. As a result during the period of July – October 2015 altogether 27 individuals agreed to participate in the interviews which were con- ducted by me and another person working for the study on Civil-Military synergies dur- ing July and October 2015.
I perceived semi- structured interview to best serve the purpose of the data collection.
Interviews are one of the most commonly used data collection method in case study ap- proach. This data collection method enables the researcher to collect relatively large amount of qualitative information from a single case enabling to form in-depth under- standing of a specific phenomenon. The advantage of semi- structured interview to structured one is that it combines a pre-determined set of open questions with the oppor- tunity for the interviewer to explore particular themes or responses further. (Mathers, Fox & Hunn, 1998, 2.)
As I wanted to learn about the individual’s perceptions and experiences on the factors effecting on the implementation of Comprehensive Approach in CSDP by gaining un- derstanding on the existing institutional realities framing the civil-military interaction as well as barriers to it, the semi- structured theme interview enabled me to explore the themes systematically and comprehensively. The strength of this approach is that I was able to use the same interview guide with all the interviewees despite their area of re- sponsibility, organization, or background. This was an important criterion for the com- parability of the data, as the key informants represented a heterogenetic group of indi- viduals that had varying amount of experience and knowledge of the interview themes.
As the order and the actual wording of the questions were not determined in advance it
gave me a great deal of flexibility to examine some issues more in-depth depending on the knowledge of the interviewee.
Due to the limited resources in terms of time and money some of the interviews were conducted via email or phone. In addition, some of the face-to-face interviews were conducted by another researcher, who forwarded first recorded and then transcribed in- terviews to me. To ensure that the advantages of the semi- structured interviews were utilized, all the interviewees received an interview preparation information package in advance. The package consisted of the letter of consent (Annex 2) explaining the goals of the interview, rights of the interviewee and expression of will to participate in the in- terview. The package also included an information sheet explaining the purpose and aim of the IECEU- project and the study on civil-military interaction in CSDP, the question regarding whether the interview will be conducted via email, phone or face-to-face (An- nex 1). In the interview guide it was clearly stated that the questions (Annex 3) are only guiding questions related to the specific pre-determined themes, which were designed to raise issues on individuals’ perceptions on the factors impacting on the cooperation and coordination between civilian and military sides in CSDP. The individuals were in- structed to answer only to questions which they had experience from, yet reminding them that the focus would be rather in the themes than in the individual questions.
Those themes were:
Theme 1: Guidelines, policies and concepts for interoperability of civil- military functions in CSDP;
Theme 2: Experiences, practices and barriers to implementation of civil- mili- tary cooperation in crisis management missions and operations;
Theme 3: Means to improve the interoperability of civil- military capabilities;
Theme 4: Pooling and sharing of civil- military capabilities;
Theme 5: Something else relevant affecting on civil-military cooperation and coordination in CSDP.
Altogether fourteen (14) out of twenty-seven (27) interviews were conducted face-to- face. Nine (9) of them were conducted by me and five (5) by another researcher. Two (2) of the interviews were conducted via phone. Duration for the face-to-face and phone interviews varied from thirty (30) minutes to ninety (90) minutes. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed. Eleven (11) interviews were conducted via email. The interviewees were asked to write their responses to the interview guide document under
the relevant themes and send the document back to the interviewers’ email address. Re- ceiving the answers varied from one day to two weeks.
When comparing the content of the email interviews to phone and face-to-face inter- views, naturally the extent of the answers were a lot shorter and the thoughts were fo- cused on responding to the specific questions. However, the theme 5 (Something else relevant affecting on civil-military cooperation and coordination in CSDP) encouraged the interviewees to rise up topics which were not covered in the interview guide. This was in my opinion an efficient method to collect general information on the civil- mili- tary interaction. All in all, I perceive the key informant interviews enabled me to draw an overall understanding on the institutional realities related to civil- military coopera- tion and coordination within CSDP, as well as the main barriers related to it.
In addition to semi-structured key informant interviews I used focus group discussions as a mean to collect qualitative information. The idea of this method is to have a rather small group of people with similar background and experience reflecting to the same questions, provide their comments, listen to what the rest of the group have to say and react to their observations. (Edwards & Holland, 2013, 34 – 37.) The main purpose is to elicit ideas, insights and experiences in a social context where people stimulate each other and consider their own views along with the views of others. (The World Bank, 2013.) This method was an efficient way to obtain lots of information especially on the sources of incoherence impacting on the implementation of the Comprehensive Ap- proach in CSDP. One of the main advantages of this technique was also that participant interaction helped to weed out extreme views, thus providing a quality control mecha- nism as well as cross- check of the material collected through key informant interviews.
(Ibid.)
Altogether four (4) focus group discussions were conducted. The participants for the fo- cus group discussions represented a range of experience relevant for CSDP. The indi- viduals represented different levels and sides of CSDP. Two of the groups consisted of personnel of Civilian Planning Capability Centre, Crisis Management Planning Direc- torate and European Military Staff, all representing the main politico-strategic level ac- tors in EEAS. One of the group consisted of former and present officials from CSDP
military operations and one consisted of officials from representatives of Ministry of In- terior, Ministry of Defence and Ministry for Foreign Affairs, all being the key national actors for CSDP. All the groups consisted of 3- 6 persons and had experience from CSDP missions and operations. Both females and males were represented in the groups.
Three (3) out of four (4) discussions were conducted face-to-face and one over a Skype.
All the participants had received the information package regarding the purpose of the IECEU- project and the aims of the study in advance. They were asked to reserve sixty (60) minutes for the discussion. The same interview guide that was used for the key in- formant interviews was also used to guide the group discussion.
At the beginning of the interview session I clarified the goals of the discussion and pro- vided instructions on how to proceed. I acted as the moderator of the discussion, ensur- ing that everyone’s opinion was being heard and that all the themes were covered during the interview. The duration for discussions varied from forty-five (45) minutes to sixty (60) minutes. Two out of four discussions were recorded and transcribed and during the other two I took notes.
The advantage of having focus group interviews with representatives from different sides of CSDP helped me to identify trends in the perceptions and opinions expressed by the different groups. Similar kind of issues were raised up from the group discus- sions and key informant interviews. Thus, these discussions helped me to also ensure the validity of the study and my analysis.
Using multiple sources of data is called data triangulation. In social sciences triangula- tion is defined as the mixing of data or methods so that diverse viewpoints are take into account. According to Eskola & Suoranta (1998, 69) data triangulation is used to gain an extensive and in-depth understanding of the subject in question. According to
Holtzhausen (2001) using data triangulation in the case study design is especially useful because it can help to uncover the deviant or off-quadrant dimension of a phenomenon.
It is especially useful for the purpose of this study, as investigation of such a complex concept it would be insufficient to use a single method (Ibid.), which was the case for this study.
1.2.4 Analysis
Content analysis is a typical qualitative data analyses method. Content analysis methods are typically divided into deductive and inductive methods depending on the role the theory plays in the process. In the inductive approach there is no constructed theory in the beginning phase of the research, and theories may evolve as a result of the research.
(Inductive Approach, 2016.) Thus, an inductive approach starts with the observations, and theories are formulated towards the end of the research and as a result of observa- tions. (See for example Goddard & Melville, 2004.) On contrary, deductive reasoning begins with a theory, and hypotheses, and then the researcher conducts the research in question in order to test whether the theories and hypotheses can be proven true with specific cases. While inductive and deductive approaches to research seem quite differ- ent, they can actually be rather complementary. In some cases, research can include multiple components, both inductive and the deductive ones. (Schreier, 2012, 31- 34.) The approach of this thesis can be described as inductive in that the data and the find- ings have guided its final argument. (Hirsjärvi et al. 1996, 248). However, the selection of the research questions and the formulation of the theoretical framework for the study have nevertheless influenced the analysis of the content. Furthermore, the elements of deductive reasoning were also applied to this study. In practical terms this combined method means that a theory did not guide the data collection as such, but once the anal- ysis process evolved a coding framework was adopted to guide the analysis. Thus, the research questions and the central themes of the theoretical part for this study were sharpened after all the data was collected in October 2015.
I chose the inductive approach in an effort to make sense of the empirical data. In the first step, I created an initial set of main categories in a data-driven procedure, in order to gain an overall idea of the content of the material. I did not hypothesize about what I might find but instead inductively analysed the interview data, looking for patterns that might reveal me something about the individuals’ perceptions and experiences of ena- blers and barriers to coherent interaction between the civilian and military actors. From this analysis, I determined that the regulations, procedures and bureaucratic structures,
together with organizational culture all put boundaries to the interaction as well as con- strains to the cooperation and coordination between the civilian and military sides. All these elements were very much institutional issues, and thus I desired to investigate how the existing institutional set-up could help to understand the barriers to enhanced coop- eration and coordination between the civilian and military sides under the framework of Common Security and Defence Policy. Based on this I determined that organisational theories could provide me further insight to this topic, and I finally turned to theories on policy implementation and neo-institutionalism both of which predict that institutions matter. I also came across the notion of coherence, and I perceived it to provide me with a good standpoint for understanding the different dimensions of the civil-military inter- action in the complex EU system. Overall, I concluded that in order to better understand the elements related to civil-military cooperation and coordination in the EU, the institu- tions would shed light on this multi-layered governance system. As a result, I deter- mined that applying institutional theories would enable me to discover the issue of civil- military synergies as well as the barriers for enhanced cooperation and coordination be- tween the civilian and military sides.
To categorize the empirical material through institutional centric lenses I thought that a framework developed by USAID (2000) would help me to structure the data analysis process. The framework was used as a coding frame (Schreier, 2012, 33) with which the content from the interview transcript and focus group discussion transcript were ana- lysed. This was done so that the relevant issues were put under the pre-fixed categories adding more data-driven categories whenever additional aspects were mentioned or al- ternatively, leaving out the categories that did not emerge from the empirical data.
Throughout the data analysis, the deductive and inductive reasoning walked hand in hand. Although the data analysis started with inductive content driven analysis, it did not remain as such. As the process evolved a coding framework was adapted and used to guide the analysis, leaving still, however, flexibility to inductive reasoning. (Simons, 2009, 139.) The issues were then re-examined in the light of evidence arising from ex- isting literature and discussions with experts working within CSDP related issues to see if they were temporal or constant. Some of the issues were reframed to reflect a refined
understanding of the institutional settings related to the implementation of the Compre- hensive Approach to CSDP missions and operations. Overall, my desire to understand the key elements related to civil-military cooperation and coordination and thereby im- plementation of the Comprehensive Approach to European Union crisis management missions and operations led me to adopt both deductive and inductive approaches in the work. The analysis process is outlined in the Figure 3.
Figure 3. Data analysis process
1.3 Discussion on the validity of the study
For the qualitative study the testing of its validity is an essential part of the process. (Al- kin, 2011, 183.) According to Patton (2002), the quality of the study is based on its va- lidity and reliability. The study needs to be reliable in order to be valid.
Reliability is partly about the repeatability of the study meaning that if implemented by another researcher, the results would be the same. To enhance the repeatability of the study I used the same interview guide for all the interviews and focus group discussions.
All the participants were given identical instructions on how to prepare for the inter- view. After conducting all the interviews I gathered the transcription and material col-
lected from email interviews seeking to capture meaningful insights that then be re- flected to the analytical framework used for the study. The notion of institutional coher- ence as the absence of contradictions and existence of positive synergies, together with the framework of the institutional settings provided by USAID were used to guide the final analysis of the process.
Validity is an indication of how sound the research is. It applies to both the design and the methods used in the research. According to Yin (2009, 240), a case study method is particularly useful when the studied phenomenon is complex including several actors, procedures or assignments. The European Union crisis management architecture is com- plex including multi-layered governance and several actors. Using a multiple-case case study design offered me an opportunity to study institutional coherence and implemen- tation process in the complex setting in detail in its real-life context. (Yin 2009, 18.) A particular strength of this method is that it is able to employ multiple sources of evi- dence to describe the key elements related to civil-military interaction in the crisis man- agement institutions.
Validity in data collection means that the findings truly represent the phenomenon one is seeking to measure. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the subject in question I applied several data collection methods: document review, key-informant interview and focus group discussion. The combination of these methods enabled me to capture wide range of experience and perception from the individuals who have worked or are currently working within the crisis management institutions. Semi-structured theme in- terview enabled me to explore the themes systematically and comprehensively. When formulating the interview questions I consulted several civilian and military experts with background from crisis management missions and operations as well as European External Action Services. I wanted to keep the questions open enough to capture the in- terviewees’ views on the matters extensively. In addition, I asked specific questions or let the interviewees to ask questions. Data review enabled me to fulfil and compare the information gathered through the empirical methods. This sort of ‘data triangulation’ is also a part of the means to test the validity of the study (see for example Golafshani, 2003, 604; Jick, 1979, 607).
In must be noted, that the selection of the informants can cause some biases limiting the view of the issue to be examined. In order to avoid that problem I requested several stakeholders to propose a number of informants representing politico-strategic and oper- ational-field level experts from civilian and military sides working for the CSDP mis- sions of interest that I could invite to participate in an interview. In addition, in order to limit my biases during the data collection process the key informant interviews were ei- ther recorded and then transcript or conducted as an email interview, in which the key informants were asked to respond to the interview by writing their answers to questions they felt to be able to contribute and then send them back to me via email. This helped me to ensure that their line of thought was understood correctly. (Alkin, 2011, 184.) However, I do not have experience from working in a crisis management mission or the EU structures, so this may have influenced on my interpretations. Thus, individuals who have worked for the structures might have differing views of the interpretations.
According to Tuomi & Sarajärvi (2004, 135 – 138), the validity of a qualitative study should be evaluated by examining also its internal coherence. In order to ensure the con- sistency, lots of attention was paid to the documentation process. I have sought to en- sure the coherence by carefully documenting both, the differing and contradicting views and themes that were repeated across the data. I have sought to present the analysis and results in a clear and transparent manner. To do this I have included several expressions to the study, doing it however so, that the anonymity of the informants is not compro- mised. Doing so I have aimed to draw an overall picture of the objective of the study.
All in all, I have attempted to justify fairly the conclusions of my analysing process, yet it needs to be notified, that the results of this study are in the end, one persons’ (re- searcher) interpretations of the collected data.
To ensure the creditability of a study it is important that the relationship between the re- searcher and the object is transparent. I have been working within crisis management training for the last couple of years, and thus I have a solid understanding of the main concepts and actors within it. Nevertheless, as mentioned above I have never worked within the EU structures or been deployed to a crisis management mission. However, to ensure my objectivity throughout the process I have approached the topic comprehen-
sively by observing several civil-military crisis management training courses and dis- cussing the issues with several people with different backgrounds. I have also attempted to review and structure analytical framework applied in thus study, because the civil- military cooperation within the European Union crisis management missions have been studied from various perspectives
Finally, the results of this study are based on individuals’ experiences, perceptions and conceptions of the elements related to civil-military interaction within the Common Se- curity and Defence Policy architecture. My own understanding of the subject in ques- tion increased significantly during the research process. The primary research questions set for this study focalized during the analysing process. During the process I created different categorizations, sharpened my analytical framework, discussed my interpreta- tions with people working within the crisis management field and wrote down my ideas and observations. All in all, the realization of this study has been a process of reflection and learning.
1.4 Structure of the study
This study is a combination of literature review and a qualitative case study approach and is seeking to understand the effects of the EU’s institutional architecture to the co- herence of its crisis management instruments. This study applies theories from organisa- tional studies, international relations and social sciences to analyse the complex nature of the civil-military interaction within the existing crisis management institutional set- ting.
The chapter two sets the analytical framework for the study discussing the institutional theories, institutional-centric approach to policy implementation, enablers and barriers related to it, as well as, the framework of institutional settings provided by USAID.
The principles of neo-institutionalism and model of institutional settings are used to guide the analysing process in the case study.
In the chapter three the concept of coherence and its application to study of European foreign policy and security architecture are discussed. In addition, the EU’s role and
‘actorness’ within the international peace building setting is discussed. The chapter
four continues the discussion of coherence in the context of Common Security and De- fence Policy, including discussion on the measures the EU has taken in order to enhance the coherence of its external actions, introducing also the concept of Comprehensive Ap- proach. Furthermore, in the light of the existing literature, the challenges lying under the interaction between the civilian and military functions in the field of peace building and crisis management are discussed.
The case for the empirical study is presented in the chapter five. The case comprises of three cases where Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operations have been deployed parallel. The chapter six presents the analysis and results of the case study. The final chapter concludes the study by outlining the key findings and dis- cusses the validity of the study.
2 INSTITUTIONS AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
According to Schofield and Sausman (2004, 235), implementation studies are posi- tioned at the intersection of public administration, organizational theory, public man- agement research and political science studies. The study of policy implementation within the European Union (EU) often focuses on how the EU policies are implemented in the member states. However, the expansion of the Brussels-based agencies, namely in the context of the EU foreign policy, has also increased interest towards the policy im- plementation within the EU’s organizations. Institutions are an integral part of the im- plementation process, and thus taking a closer look to the way the institutions operate can help us to understand the key elements of the enablers and barriers in a policy im- plementation process. Studying the civil–military relations within EU foreign policy from an institutionalist perspective provides a fruitful basis for analysis because it repre- sents a very unique model of governance. It is neither directed by supranational organi- zations, nor does it involve bargaining over policy alternatives. Instead, the interaction is achieved through decentralized institutional mechanisms, involving processes associ- ated with both intergovernmental and social constructivist theories (Smith, 2004, 96 - 101). For this reason, the neo-institutiolistic theories provide a good stand-point for understanding the complex nature of the EU’s defence and security architecture.
2.1 Neo-institutionalism
Neo-institutionalism (also called new institutionalism) starts from the basic premise that institutions matter. Neo-institutionalism is a sub-field of organizational theory that fo- cuses on developing a sociological view of institutions, comprising of the way they be- have and affect to society. (Koenig, 2016, 37.) It provides a way of viewing institutions outside of the traditional views of economics by explaining why and how institutions emerge in a certain way within a given context, and how they effect on human interac- tion. (Nee, 2002, 1 -2.) The new institutionalism is also a part of an emerging paradigm in the social sciences (Ibid, 1). In this social setting, it recognised that institutions oper- ate in an open environment consisting of other institutions, called the ‘institutional envi- ronment’. This environment shapes the institutions.
Neo-institutionalist scholars, Hall and Taylor (1996, 4) view institutions as environment of not just formal rules, but also the symbol systems, cognitive scripts and moral tem- plates that provide the frameworks of meaning that are guiding human actions. These cognitive symbol systems are formed in the interaction of the actors (organisations) which are embedded in the institution (Schroeder, 2011, 38). From the neo-institutional premises, these organizational actors shape the institutions purposefully pursuing their strategic interests within the context of specific set of institutional rule. Formal organi- zational bodies are thus not solely passive recipients of political guidance, but rather ac- tive and at least partially independent actors with their own agendas and interests. The organisations provide set of rules, norms and categories of perception that influence the behaviour of individual actors within them. This does not only happen by specifying what individual actors should do, but more through influencing what one can imagine oneself doing in a given context. The individuals thus act accordingly specific roles that script their interactions and lead them to reproduce existing social orders based on com- mon categories of perception. (Ibid, 38 -39.)
Several scholars (Koenig, 2016; Thomas 2008; Jupille & Caporaso, 1999) studying in- stitutionalisation of the European Union foreign policy have used neo-institutional ap- proach to explain the development of the Union’s security architecture. Neo-institution- alism can take different focuses to explain the nature of the interaction. In the context of the European foreign policy the commonly used approaches such as Rational Institu- tionalism, Historical Institutionalism and Sociological Institutionalism (see for example Pollack, 2007). These approaches are briefly explained in the context of foreign policy.
2.1.1 Rational Institutionalism
According to Rational Institutionalism, institutions can influence on individuals and or- ganizations’ behaviour, making the individuals to act in one of two ways. According to this approach, the institutions are seen as regulative environments, which can constrain and regularize organizational behaviour. Individuals’ behaviour is regulated by the fear of punishment or coercion (Palthe, 2014, 61). If individuals and organizations are not producing a preferred outcome it is seen to be due to an absence of institutional arrange- ments, such as rules and policies that would guarantee complementary behaviour by the
individuals (Hall & Taylor, 1996, 43- 46). In the context of the European Union, this strand focuses on the analysis the EU’s legislative process (Pollack, 2008, 6). For crisis management and peacebuilding this could mean analysing how the fear of sanctions or trade embargo, for example, influence on the actions that different actors and states take.
2.1.2 Historical Institutionalism
Historical institutionalism is somewhat similar to the rational choice theory, perceiving that the individuals’ behaviour is influenced by norms, and thus they act out of duty or awareness of what is expected from them. These assumptions can be both informal, such as habits and customs of the organization and formal, such as laws, rules and guidelines. Differing from the rational choice theory, this approach perceives that indi- viduals perform certain actions not for the fear of punishment or attempt to conform, but rather due to moral and social obligation. (Palthe, 2014, 60-61.) This feeling of
obligation can be seen to be a driver for several EU Member States to participate in the crisis management missions. The moral obligation to ‘show the flag’ has been
charactirised to be the motivation behind participation in several crisis management interventions.
2.1.3 Sociological Institutionalism
Sociological institutionalism differs from its rational and historical colleagues’ taking different approach to drivers behind individual’s behaviour within the institutions.
(Finnemore, 1996, 326.) This approach has been influenced by social constructivism and accordingly the institutions influence on individual’s behaviour not simply by spec- ifying what one should do but also by specifying what one can imagine oneself doing in a given context (Hall & Taylor, 1996, 948). According to Hall & Taylor (1996) individ- uals and organizations adopt a certain behaviour not because of rational calculation or consideration of efficiency, but because it enhances social legitimacy. This socialization is a highly interactive process that gradually includes individuals, organizations and states into social norms and rules of a given community (Koenig, 2016, 38). The behaviour and actions of the actors is thus influenced by their view of social
