Written by: Kevin Morgan Whitehead Supervised by: Elise Alsteens Edited by: Theodora Posta Abstract: This article examines NATO’s persistent “codification gap” in Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (JISR). It…
Following the 2011 NATO intervention, Libya suffered increased instability with shifts in governance and a lack of central power. Following this, in 2013, the European Union (EU) launched missions in the country through its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), aimed at supporting border management. However, questions were raised regarding the EU’s intentions as stabilising Libya became a vital security issue due to the country becoming a departure point for irregular migration. This Info Flash examines how securitisation shaped the EU’s crisis management in Libya to offer broader lessons about the Union’s limitations in responding to crises. Within the Libya case study and using securitisation as a conceptual framework, the research finds that a change in rhetoric within the CSDP’s missions, a gap between objectives and implementation, and persistent divisions within the Union carry broader lessons for the Union. Indeed, these weaknesses have ultimately shown that the EU tends to focus on short-term priorities rather than long-term stabilisation, becomes stuck in political entrapment that perpetuates missions, and experiences fragmentation within its member states that weakens its credibility.
This paper explores whether the European Union’s support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) is substantive or illusory. By examining legal and policy commitments alongside the case studies of Ukraine and Libya, the research shows that EU support is context-dependent. In Ukraine, where judicial and political interests align, the EU provides tangible, substantive support. In Libya, stability and migration control take precedence, resulting in symbolic engagement and undermined cooperation. The paper argues that this difference stems from differing institutional logics: generally, the ICC pursues principles of justice and fairness, while the EU often prioritises political consequences.
