The Department of Political Science of Leiden University invites applications for the PhD project ‘The European Union as Crisis Manager: An Institutional Perspective’

The wider project team of which this PhD will be part, analyzes the EU’s growing crisis and disaster management capacities. It assesses those capacities in light of the EU’s unique system of supranational governance. Moreover, it aims to identify institutional pathways towards the efficient and legitimate development of EU crisis management capacity.

The PhD position is a four-year AIO position within the Department of Political Science at Leiden University. The project will be supervised by Prof. dr. Arjen Boin.

Deadline for applications is December 1, 2014. Read here for more information on the position and the application process.

The Department of Economic History of Stockholm University announces a position in its doctoral studies program, specialized in International Relations and enrolled in the Stockholm University Graduate School of International Studies (SIS). For this position, candidates are sought with an interest in global security questions, broadly defined. This includes questions of how global security is conceived and pursued by through international organizations to ensure mutual security and safety in the world. Empirical foci could include ‘old’ security challenges (e.g. territorial incursion) as well as ‘new’ security challenges (threats to environmental, economic, human, and societal security). The doctoral student’s research studies will be part of the department’s international relations research agenda, including the dynamics of global security cooperation. Research studies with a historical and/or global political economy angle will also be welcomed.

Deadline for applications is 10 June 2014. Read here for more information on the position, requirements, application, etc.

One of the greatest challenges to managing modern crises is foresight. How can we see a crisis coming? Recent history is full of examples of failed foresight: September 11, the Tsunami disaster, food safety scandals, and the Arab Spring. In a globalized world where crises originate and travel across borders with ease, the challenge is multiplied by the inefficacy of national approaches. Rarely does one state have the capacity or the ability to spot the “next one” coming. Cooperation with neighboring states is critical — not only to spot a possible oncoming crisis but also to make sense of what is happening.

The European Union’s foresight capacities are poorly known. Recent research shows the EU is increasingly assisting member states in managing “transboundary crises”, but little is known about its ability to help member states makes sense of unfolding crises. A recent book by the Societal Security Research group aims to improve our understanding. Using an analytical framework familiar to crisis management scholars, the study examines all the EU’s tools and information systems relevant to crisis management. Those systems are analyzed in terms of their ability to help detect, analyze and communicate oncoming crises. The results are impressive.

Eighty-four systems were found and inventoried. These range from severe weather warnings to political conflict predictors. The “Early Warning and Response System” for pandemics and other health threats is an example. It links national capitals, compiles information, and looks for clues from multiple sources that, when analyzed together, helps to identify a possible outbreak. The Integrated Political Crisis Response system combines crisis information with EU decision-makers to quickly address a crisis. These and many other systems are examined in depth in the new book available here, and presented in a short article by the EU’s Institute for Security Studies here. It is clear that even member states of the EU are not aware of the full extent of the EU’s capacities to foresee future crises.

The book identifies a number of problems, however. The crisis warnings systems operate at different levels of functionality – some are simple websites, while others are 24/7 staffed units – which generates mixed expectations amongst national officials. Attempts are being made to link these systems up, through the ARGUS “system of systems”, for instance, but the process is slow. Since modern crises cascade across sectors, it is not clear whether different warning systems can communicate effectively with one another. More research is needed, but the EU’s growing role in helping to manage crises in a complex, globalized world is worth keeping track of.

In 2013 the Societal Security Research Group undertook a study of the EU’s many technical systems that can be used to help policymakers “make sense” of impending and actual crises. The report can be reached here. The annex from the report, which lists and describes the many systems identified in the project, can be found here.

In this SIIA working paper “The EU’s Internal Security Strategy: Living in the Shadow of its Past”, Anna Horgby and Mark Rhinard explain the policy history of the EU’s Internal Security Strategy. An upcoming journal article will assess whether the nature of that history has impacted its effect on subsequent outcomes.

The European Policy Centre and the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency held a policy dialogue in Brussels on 21st of November, discussing the future of the EU as a transboundary crisis manager. Keynote speaker was Kristalina Georgieva, European Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response, who gave an engaged speech about EU’s role in crises. A distinguished panel; Florika Fink-Hooijer, Director – Strategy, Policy and International Co-operation, Erik Windmar, Member of Cecilia Malmström Cabinet, Directorate General for Home Affairs of the European Commission, Helena Lindberg, Director-General of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency and Antonio Missiroli, Director of the European Union Institute for Security Studies, pursued the discussion reflecting on recent developments and looked forward.

The event was opened by Rosa Balfour, Senior Policy Analyst, European Policy Centre, and. Magnus Ekengren and Mark Rhinard, authors of the recently published book ‘The European Union as Crisis Manager’, moderated the discussions.

Read the full report from the event here.

In this film Arjen Boin, Magnus Ekengren and Mark Rhinard explain how the European Union is developing a growing capacity to initiate and coordinate a shared response to crises and disasters.

Ylva Pettersson, of the European Societal Security Research Group discusses this question, and presents the research project ANVIL, in a blog post for the Swedish Institute for International Affairs.

New threats to societal security can be described as border-crossing, as they hit several sectors of society and cannot be controlled or stopped by only one state. Thus, they demand cooperation across national and sectoral borders. Crisis management and civil protection is coordinated within the EU in order to contribute to the existing national capabilities. How can EU best coordinate these efforts – within the frames of existing national systems?

Read the entire blog post here (in Swedish).

ANVIL is an EU co-funded research project that looks at how civil security systems function in different countries and regions. The project brings together 12 organisations from 11 different countries in Europe, including members of the Societal Security Research Group.

Read more about the project here: http://anvil-project.net/

Actorness and effectiveness in international disaster relief: The European Union and United States in comparative perspective

In a new article in International Relations (27(3) 356-374), Erik Brattberg and Mark Rhinard of the Societal Security research group examines the role of the European Union (EU) and United States as actors in international disaster relief. They take the analysis of ‘actorness’ one step further than normal by assessing the extent to which different aspects of EU and US actorness led to effectiveness in actual outcomes. In doing so, they make two contributions. First, they provide a rare comparison between EU and US foreign policy actorness, shedding light on the actor capability of each bloc in the area of international disaster relief. Second, they specify the relationship between actorness and effectiveness, a relationship which is too often assumed rather than explored. Using previous research of EU and US actorness as a starting point, Brattberg and Rhinard link four aspects of actorness to effectiveness and assess the resulting hypotheses using the case of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The authors find support for their proposed links between actorness and effectiveness, although it is stated that further research is needed before robust conclusions can be drawn.

Read the article here.