547 Natividad Fernández Sola The proposed reform of the european external actions service and its implications for the european union‘s security policy bodies within the structure of the EEAS. In the initial corporative management organisation chart designed in February 2011 by the High Representative, reporting to the Head of Operations and the Executive Secretary General together with their respective delegates, were the Political and Security Committee and the Military Committee and, by extension, as structures in times of crisis, the Military Staff, the Crisis Management and Planning Directorate (CMPD) and the Civil Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC); with the advice of the Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management (CIVCOM) and the Political Military Group (PMG). As consultative bodies there were the European Satellite Centre, the European Defence Agency and the EU Institute of Security Studies. Reporting directly to the High Representative, but separate from the former, were the Special Representatives and the Directorate of Crisis Response and Operational Coordination, together with the Situation Centre and the legal service. In the organisation chart of 2013, the situation is much more complex on account of the number of new Directorates; moreover the following changes have occurred: CIVCOM and PMG now report to the Political and Security Committee. The crisis management structures (EUMS, CMPD and CPCC) no longer report to the Military committee but directly to the High Representative. In the same block of crisis management structures a division of security policy and conflict prevention now exists that deals with issues such as conventional arms and arms of massive destruction, peacekeeping and peace-building, mediation and sanctions, and, with no hierarchical links, the Operation Centre recently activated as the EU’s Operational Headquarters31. In addition to these consultative bodies is the European College of Security and Defence. Outside the formal crisis management structure, as had been the case until now, is the Crisis Response and Operational Coordination Department32 and the recently renamed Intelligence Analysis Centre (IntCen)33. As an operational scheme, one detects a certain organic isolation between the CSDP prevention and crisis management structures and the rest of the service’s organisation chart34. This situation has a legal basis in that the Decision on the organisation and functioning of the EEAS states that the specificities of these structures, as well as the 31 Strange arrangement on account of its lack of links with any other body and because the Centre of Operations remains a subdivision of the operations division of the EU Military Staff (EUMS). 32 This directorate extends into three subdivisions: strategic planning, Centre of Operations and consular crisis management. 33 In 2011 the Operations Centre was renamed as the Intelligence Analysis Centre (IntCen). 34 Article 4 of Council Decision establishing the EEAS, cit. The travaux préparatoires indicate proposals such as the Slovakian recommendation that ESDP and crisis management stay out of the EEAS. Finland, on the other hand, saw the inclusion of the crisis response and the crisis management tasks within the EEAS as a “major structural improvement; see “EEAS 2.0: A Legal Commentary on the Council Decision 2010/427/ EU establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action service”, EU Foreign Policy, CEPS Paperbacks, 7/2/2013.
REVISTA IEEE 2
To see the actual publication please follow the link above