The political question doctrine is a controversial admissibility requirement that intersects the rule of law and separation of powers. Based on recent ECtHR and ECJ judgments, this blog post highlights the need to evaluate the doctrine within a broader framework of legal accountability.
On 10 September 2024, the CJEU issued its judgment in the joined cases of KS and KD, addressing the scope of its jurisdiction within the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Specifically, the Court asserted its jurisdiction in so far as the harm-causing conduct did not relate to “political or strategic” choices made in the context of the CFSP. I criticize the Court’s reliance on such an ill-defined concept to delineate the boundaries of its jurisdiction and argue that removing the limitations on the CJEU’s jurisdiction within the CFSP would require a reform of the Treaties.
In the context of profound (geo-)political changes, and following the Conference on the Future of Europe, the European Parliament (EP) adopted proposals for a Treaty reform for the area of defence. This blog post analyses the proposed formation of the European Defence Union (EDU) and the introduction of qualified majority voting (QMV) while concluding that the new framework would likely create contradictory outcomes and undesirably challenge the current constitutional balance.
Security Strategy after the Zeitenwende: Institutions, Law, Politics
Under the shock of the Russian invasion, what the security community has long been calling for in vain is now taking shape: a security strategy through which Germany takes on more responsibility in the field of security and defense policy. The decisions taken by the German government on 27 February 2022, which are widely regarded as a Zeitenwende or „turning point“ in security policy, marked a first step.
For decades, the EU’s security and defence policy was largely looked at as a theoretical piece in the overall puzzle of the Union’s external role. During the past week, however, the unthinkable happened, and European defence policy has taken a significant leap forward. This brings to fore questions about the legal nature of the security and mutual assistance provisions in the EU Treaties, including the relationship between aligned and non-aligned States in EU defence policy.
The arming of Ukraine with European financial means may enjoy widespread support among European populations scandalized by Putin's egregious actions. But this should not obscure the fact that it is the result of largely arcane decision-making processes: Neither the establishment of the European Peace Facility nor the breaking of the Union's rules on arms exports by supplying weapons to the war zone Ukraine was the subject of a substantively open public discourse and will formation.
Stories on the civil–military interface in the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) rarely have a happy ending. They tell us that bureaucratic efficiency and operational effectiveness could be enhanced if the civil and military branches of EU security and defence were better streamlined. This blogpost challenges this negative narrative and argues that a significant civil–military nexus—that is the interconnectedness of civilian and military elements in the CSDP—has already materialized.
The intergovernmental component based on international law principles remains quite strong in this policy field. However, the Council appears as a key decision-making body with regard to launching EU military missions, and determining the structural details (command and control). This certainly raises the question on which level of the multi-level legal system effective rule-of-protection mechanisms are in fact embedded.
While most legal scholarship and the Bundesverfassunsgericht hold that Member States remain self-governed in the field of military policy, the New Defence Policy illustrates that this is not the case. PESCO shows how the New Defence Policy is subjecting the Member States to regulatory measures which are generated and enforced through EU political processes that clearly leave behind the intergovernmental form.
This blog post wants to raise two objections against politico-integrative euphoria: first, I agree with the view that the current initiatives are marginal in comparison to the EU’s needs for becoming a flexible, ready, and willing autonomous security and defense actor; and second, I will expound that autonomy still matters though in a different way than it did before, posing a particular challenge to EU actorness.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters