Principle, Policy and Practice in EU Security Provision

The Treaty commits the EU to pursuing principles, including peace, security and human rights, in its external action. This paper builds on theories of values in EU foreign policy (Wolfers, Linklater, Manners, Manners & Lucarelli), actorness and coherence (Bretherton & Volger, Orbie, Nutall) to analyse the complex relationships between principle, policy and practice in EU security provision. It considers the pursuit of plural principles (peace and human rights), which may be in tension with each other, in security provision in a multilayered environment. It uses document analysis, interviews and extensive fieldwork in DR Congo to address: i) How does the EU translate its principles of peace and justice for human rights violations into policy and put them into practice, particularly in societies in or emerging from violent conflict, such as DR Congo? ii) What are the implications of this for theorising the EU as a security provider? The EU does not have a conflict management strategy (Whitman & Wolff, 2010), or policy for transitional justice, or peace and justice. The paper finds: 1) that the EU has, however, translated the principles of peace and human rights into policy provisions scattered across the pre-Lisbon pillars, in a piecemeal and fragmented way. In Congo, the Commission, Council and Parliament prioritised peace and justice within policy sectors (SSR, rule-of-law, mediation) rather than at country-level. 2) Incoherence within, rather than between the pillars is a key challenge. 3) Policy and practice are not coherent: principles may be put into practice in the absence of policy, and policy provisions may not be implemented. The paper concludes that considering whole-of-EU engagement and the pursuit of multiple principles are key aspects of EU security provision. It theorises the multidirectional and non-linear relationships between principle, policy, practice in conceptualising multilayered EU security provision in fragile contexts.