Case Studies of the EU’s Actions in the Field of Conflict Resolution, Prevention and Mediation

Federico Santopinto, Louise Souverbie, Gustavo Müller, Gustavo Ramírez Buchheister, Ester Sabatino & Cornelius Adebahr

Based on the analytical framework advanced in ENGAGE Working Paper 18, this article assesses the European Union's (EU) ability to implement integrated external action in conflict prevention, mediation and resolution. The article builds on the analysis of four crisis/conflict theatres around the world (Kosovo, Somalia, Iran and Colombia), where the EU became involved at different phases of the conflict cycle.

Each section thus considers the rationale of the EU’s engagement in the specific type of conflict or crisis, as well as its main objectives and interests; then reviews the instruments deployed; and analyses both the horizontal coherence between institutions and the vertical coherence between the EU level and the Member States initiatives, when they exist.

Finally, each case study tries to evaluate the EU's performance in terms of how it is perceived by other parties and, above all, whether the EU has the capacity to act autonomously.

Overall, this paper argues that the gap between CSDP and other strands of the EU's external action that fall under the scope of Community policies tends to undermine the horizontal coherence of the EU action in crisis/conflict management.

Even if the EU is able to act in profoundly diverse crises and obtain some results, the tools at its disposal do not always enable the EU to translate potential into actual influence. The article also concludes that the EU's ability to act autonomously depends on external factors beyond its control, and that in some cases, such as in the Iran and partially in the Kosovo cases, it is far from assured. The presence and position of third parties – in particular the United States – in the crisis theatres is indeed an important variable that influences the results and autonomy of EU action.