| dc.description.abstract | This thesis analyses the development of the EU Battlegroups, aiming to shed light on the question why the ambitious rhetoric of the EU deviates from reality considering the fact that these forces have not been deployed yet. Since the literature does not offer a proper theoretically informed explanation for this discrepancy, this thesis addresses the theoretical lacuna. After outlining the benefits and shortcomings of European integration and International Relations theory, this thesis argues that historical institutionalism has the best credits for analysing the EU decision-making process regarding the development of the Battlegroups. This approach highlights the importance of the historical institutional context in which rational actors make decisions, thus looks further than EU member states’ intentions. This context proved instrumental for understanding why the outcome of the development process (e.g. the inactive Battlegroups) deviates from the ambitious rhetoric of the EU on the need to play a full role at the international stage.
This thesis invokes the metaphor of a tree to explain how the historical institutional context influenced EU decision-making regarding the Battlegroups. This thesis argues that the EU member states started to climb the tree in the late 1990s when a critical juncture took place. The decisions made in and influenced by the historical context subsequently could not be changed or reversed due to the institutional context. Only when a new critical juncture took place, after the successful Operation Artemis in 2003, the EU was able to climb on a new branch. This decision was again embedded within the historical context. The consequence of these past decisions, as well as of the decisions not made, was that there were political, military, and financial obstacles to the Battlegroups deployment. The institutional context again restricted the Union from transferring to another branch or to climb down to the trunk of the tree. In practice, this meant that the EU failed to change the concept of the Battlegroups and that abolishment of these forces was undesirable. Therefore, the EU member states continue to argue in favor of the concept, even though it has proven to be an inefficient outcome because deployment was difficult or even impossible. | |
