The EU was created after the Treaty of Maastricht on 7 February 1992 and its ratification on 1 November 1993. It marked the start of a new era for the setting of basic conditions for multidimensional cooperation on political, security, social, cultural, economic and monetary affairs. The Treaty of Lisbon adopted on 13 December 2007 was a milestone in the process of expanding the EU's role on the level of regional and international security. The European Union acquired legal subjectivity, which certainly made it easier for it to function as an international organization. It also regulated and reorganised EU treaty law, and stipulated that the principal aspect of EU security is a mutual defence clause designed to protect all member states.

The authors of this volume offer a proposal for a revised regional order in post-Soviet Europe and Eurasia that would boost security, facilitate prosperity, and address conflicts in the region, and thus reduce tensions in Russia-West relations.

It has now been almost two years since the Treaty of Lisbon took effect. The time was characterized by an intensive and controversial discussion between the European Union (EU) institutions and member states on the setup of arguably the most important institutional innovation besides the new post of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR): the European External Action Service (EEAS).The EEAS has the purpose of serving its head, HR Ashton, in fulfilling her tasks of, inter alia, conducting the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and increasing the efficiency and coherence of EU external relations. Regarding hither to the execution of EU foreign policy, the HR admitted in the run-up to the establishment of the EEAS that “the EU can be too slow, too cumbersome and too bureaucratic”1. With the setup of the new diplomatic service the EU wished to overcome occurring difficulties that result out of the complex net of responsibilities that characterise the external relations of the EU and thus ‘give the EU a stronger voice around the world, and greater impact on the ground’2.Given the fact that the EEAS constitutes a whole new de facto institution without predecessor and was therefore built from scratch,it is very interesting from a political scientist point of view to see where and how the new service is positioned in the institutional architecture of the EU system. Since the EEAS was ought to bring together rather intergovernmental (e.g. CFSP) and supranational (e.g. development cooperation) policy spheres of EU external action, a discussion on how it can be scrutinized by grand theories of European integration seems to offer valuable insights.In section 2 this research paper first takes a deeper look at two of the most influential grand theories of European integration, neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism. Basic assumptions and logics of the two approaches will be used to build indicators with which the overall research question of the analysis will be assessed: ¿can the two grand theories explain the institutional setup of the newly established EEAS? The empirical examination of the topic,which will mainly be based on the relevant treaty provisions and the existing decisions and reports of the EU institutions on the EEAS, follows in section 3 of the paper. Furthermore, findings of various academic articles that dealt with the EEAS in the last two years are taken into account. A conclusion summarizes the results of the analysis in section 4.

In this new Brookings Marshall Paper, Michael O'Hanlon argues that now is the time for Western nations to negotiate a new security architecture for neutral countries in eastern Europe to stabilize the region and reduce the risks of war with Russia. He believes NATO expansion has gone far enough. The core concept of this new security architecture would be one of permanent neutrality. The countries in question collectively make a broken-up arc, from Europe's far north to its south: Finland and Sweden; Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus; Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan; and finally Cyprus plus Serbia, as well as possibly several other Balkan states. Discussion on the new framework should begin within NATO, followed by deliberation with the neutral countries themselves, and then formal negotiations with Russia. The new security architecture would require that Russia, like NATO, commit to help uphold the security of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other states in the region. Russia would have to withdraw its troops from those countries in a verifiable manner; after that, corresponding sanctions on Russia would be lifted. The neutral countries would retain their rights to participate in multilateral security operations on a scale comparable to what has been the case in the past, including even those operations that might be led by NATO. They could think of and describe themselves as Western states (or anything else, for that matter). If the European Union and they so wished in the future, they could join the EU. They would have complete sovereignty and self-determination in every sense of the word. But NATO would decide not to invite them into the alliance as members. Ideally, these nations would endorse and promote this concept themselves as a more practical way to ensure their security than the current situation or any other plausible alternative.

The emergence of a common security and foreign policy has been one of the most contentious issues accompanying the integration of the European Union. In this book, Michael Smith examines the specific ways foreign policy cooperation has been institutionalized in the EU, the way institutional development affects cooperative outcomes in foreign policy, and how those outcomes lead to new institutional reforms. Smith explains the evolution and performance of the institutional procedures of the EU using a unique analytical framework, supported by extensive empirical evidence drawn from interviews, case studies, official documents and secondary sources. His perceptive and well-informed analysis covers the entire history of EU foreign policy cooperation, from its origins in the late 1960s up to the start of the 2003 constitutional convention. Demonstrating the importance and extent of EU foreign/security policy, the book will be of interest to scholars, researchers and policy-makers.

A state-of-the-art consideration of the European Union's crisis response mechanisms based on comparative fieldwork in a number of cases.