Since the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the European Union (EU) has seemed to work towards a unification of foreign policy interests of all member states. However, the most recent case...Show moreSince the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the European Union (EU) has seemed to work towards a unification of foreign policy interests of all member states. However, the most recent case of Libya reveals that the EU is still torn when it comes to questions of foreign policy and especially the deployments of military troops. Within the last twenty years, a number of international crises have pointed out the deficiencies of the EU with regard to these issues. With this thesis, I aim to find reasons for the inability of the EU in questions of foreign policy, and particularly military action-taking within an EU framework. I argue that the role of Germany in this context is rather crucial. As the largest and most powerful member state, Germany’s position has a large influence on the actions of the EU. Germany has been very reluctant towards using military power after the horrible events in World War II (WWII), and hence, I pose the research question: ‘To what extent does Germany’s aversion to the use of military power due to historic reasons affect the EU’s ability to speak with a common voice on issues of security and defense?’ My main argument is the following: ‘The inability of the EU to speak with a common voice with regard to military action is due to several aspects, with the largest influence being Germany’s aversion to use military power due to reasons of guilt and the country’s history’. In my thesis I find that a number of reasons may influence the inability of the EU to speak with a common voice; however, the largest effect seems to have Germany and the country’s still-existing reluctance towards using military means due to its history and consequential guilt sentiments.Show less
In the past, the threat of nuclear arms and the states and actors that might gain access to such technology has resulted in the pre-emptive use of military force against states. Israel attacked...Show moreIn the past, the threat of nuclear arms and the states and actors that might gain access to such technology has resulted in the pre-emptive use of military force against states. Israel attacked Iraq (Operation Opera in 1981) and Syria (Operation Orchard in 2007) in order to prevent or forcefully disrupt their nuclear proliferation efforts. Currently, concern about Iran’s nuclear program has raised debate about the possibility of an Israeli pre-emptive attack. This thesis employs hypotheses from realist, constructivist and liberal theory to explain the use of force in counter-proliferation, using a strategy of within-case and across-case analysis of both prior attacks. I locate determining conditions that led Israel to use force in counter proliferation. The hypotheses explore conditions such as uncertainty about state identity, the perception of threat, the risk of shift in regional power balance, prior military hostility, hostile public statements made by state leaders, undeterrability and the domestic support of state leaders. Most of these conditions are present in the current case of Iran, when considering the possibility of a pre-emptive Israeli attack. If Iran’s military support to Hezbollah is interpreted as indirect military hostility, all the conditions for an Israeli pre-emptive attack would be present, when considering the conditions leading to the previous two Israeli attacks in counter proliferation. The analysis suggests there is a high chance that this will cause Israel to use pre-emptive force in order to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, as the “Begin Doctrine”, on which Israel’s security policy is based, will not accept such high security risks.Show less
