Abstract

In the aftermath of the UK’s 2016 referendum result to leave the European Union and the beginnings of the discussions on what form this might take, security and defence appeared to be uncontroversial; both sides seemed to agree that continued close partnership was both necessary and desirable. In spite of this initial superficial agreement, however, the specific manner that this would take was far from agreed upon. With a background of the recent EU developments in the area of security and defence since the referendum result, and considering the background of the significant role played by the UK in crisis management operations, the paper considers the potential consequences for crisis management of the UK leaving the EU. The paper argues that the EU-UK relationship in crisis management appears to be a highly complex one giving rise to a number of difficulties post-Brexit. One of the manifestations of this arises with the law of international responsibility.
The EU has increasingly developed its internal institutional framework within crisis management in order to assist its progress as autonomous international actor. This forms the first part of the paper: a discussion of the nature of crisis management and the more recent developments by the EU to create a more unified and coherent autonomous structure. The paper then, secondly, considers the potential future EU-UK relationship and the resulting complexity for the EU structures. The Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the UK and the EU declares that both parties seek “close cooperation in Union-led crisis management missions, both civilian and military.” In order to do this, the declaration mentions participation “on a case-by-case basis in CSDP missions and operations through a Framework Participation Agreement”. With this in mind, the paper examines the structure and nature of framework participation agreements with third states for engagement with CSDP crisis management operations.
The paper then, finally, focuses on the difficulties in the application of the rules of international responsibility to the area of crisis management, generally, as well as discussing the complexity for the application to this distinct relationship. In doing this, the paper can consider the legal complexity of this arrangement. When considering responsibility, the development of the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations (ARIO) are those considered in relation to the EU. The key principles in the ARIO, as they were in the previous Articles on State Responsibility (ASR), are that responsibility is incurred for an internationally wrongful act, constituted by a breach of international law attributed to the responsible actor. Overall, the paper is seeking to argue that not only is attribution difficult to apply with the central nature of the EU’s crisis management structures, but also the development of further international relationships, such as a post-Brexit UK FPA, only provides greater complexity. The difficulties arising from responsibility only serve to demonstrate the emerging complexity in the potential future Security and Defence EU-UK relationship.