With the adoption of the European Union Global Strategy in 2016 the EU renewed its quest for attaining strategic autonomy. However, the EU document did not specify what would constitute European...Show moreWith the adoption of the European Union Global Strategy in 2016 the EU renewed its quest for attaining strategic autonomy. However, the EU document did not specify what would constitute European strategic autonomy (ESA), so, as is the case with the EU’s external policies, the national perspectives of Member States are its obvious basis. Historically, the Netherlands has been an obstructionist when it came to European security and defence integration due to its Atlanticist position, begging the question: how is European strategic autonomy represented in Dutch politics? To understand the Dutch perspective and positioning regarding ESA, this thesis drew from the field of Critical Geopolitics, conducting an interpretive-explanatory research employing discourse analysis by analysing statements made by party representatives in the Tweede Kamer during the period of 2016-2021. Three distinct schools of thought underpinning the representations of ESA in the Dutch debate. The Sovereigntists are Eurosceptics who present ESA as an attempt to establish a European army and a threat to national sovereignty. The Europeanists actively champion ESA and envision it as an emancipatory project to make the EU able to act independently of the US because it is an increasingly unreliable ally. The Atlanticists present ESA as an opportunity to take responsibility within NATO and improve burden-sharing with the US. This thesis found that the Dutch debate regarding European security policy has substantially Europeanised. While the Atlanticists are still cautious, they no longer take an active obstructionist position, instead adopting Europeanist talking-points from the 90s. Considering this Europeanist momentum, there is potential for the Netherlands to become an active and serious promotor of ambitious European security commitments.Show less
The EU is not only pressured to review its CSDP as a result of threats it perceives coming from the South and the East, but also by the USA. In addition, the CSDP has been criticized by scholars...Show moreThe EU is not only pressured to review its CSDP as a result of threats it perceives coming from the South and the East, but also by the USA. In addition, the CSDP has been criticized by scholars for its ineffectiveness for various reasons. This thesis prioritizes the argument that the CSDP lacks effectiveness due to institutional defects. Furthermore, initiatives have been implemented as a result of the EUGS and the IPSD. These institutional constructs may influence the CSDP’s ineffectiveness. Within academic literature, however, research is lacking concerning the impact of the initiatives of the IPSD on the CSDP. Therefore, this thesis aims to answer the question of how the EU has addressed the criticisms concerning the CSDP. The theoretical foundation of this thesis is rational-choice institutionalism, and is conducted on the basis of a triangulated study. First of all, the correspondence between the EUGS and the IPSD has been examined. Thereafter, it has been researched how the IPSD addresses the scholarly criticisms concerning its institutional defects. It is concluded that with the implementation of the IPSD, the EU has not been able to address all the scholarly criticisms. The plan has addressed the criticisms concerning the lack of capacities, and also the ability to ensure compliance in generating resources. Furthermore, the issue concerning the absence of military headquarters has been addressed as well. Finally, it is argued that the initiatives may have created the opportunity to increase the CSDP’s effectiveness indirectly.Show less
