University of Salford  The General 
A Greater Manchester  Jonas Žemaitis Ministry  
University Military Academy of National Defence  
of Lithuania Republic of Lithuania
NATO Energy 
Vilnius Gediminas  Security
Technical University Centre  
of Excellence
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
2018 September Volume 8 Number 1
https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2018.8.1(4)
PATH TOWARDS NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION:  
GENESIS AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES
Roman Volodymyrovych Shapoval1*, Vasyl Yakovych Nastyuk2,  
Olha Ihorivna Bezpalova3, Nadiia Petrivna Khrystynchenko4
1,2,4Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Dynamivska St. 4, Kharkiv 61000, Ukraine,
E-mail: romanshap882@gmail.com
Received 15 December 2017; accepted 20 June 2018
Abstract. The article reviews standards of state policies in terms of the national security of the European Union countries. The authors 
provide a comprehensive analysis of the theory and practice of providing national security in the EU countries. In addition to that, the 
article provides for a deep analysis of the major methodological approaches in regards to establishing national security in the EU. The 
authors make a systematic review of the development and implementation of the EU security doctrines. The aim of this research article 
is to analyze the development of the idea of developing a European defense policy to find an effective way of incorporating our state into 
European security structures. Also, the research question may be posed as discussion on the way the national security is guaranteed in 
the EU countries. The novelty of the study is in the way how the past, current and future national security setup is implemented in the EU 
countries and what may the ways of its development. Materials and methods used in studying this problem, researches and publications 
of such domestic and foreign researchers were used. At the same time, processes of global and European security need constant analysis 
and study. The results showed that the problem of the formation of the European security and defense system that emerged shortly after 
the end of the Second World War prompted European countries to work more closely together, particularly in the defense sector. After 
the Cold War and the emergence of new challenges for stability on the continent, the EU has embarked on a path towards greater con-
solidation and greater awareness of own defense and security interests. Conclusion of the article is that an analysis of the approaches to 
the national security in the EU convincingly demonstrates that the level of security depends on many factors. The successful provision 
of national security strategy and approach depends on the sustainability and strength of their national economies. Only a strong economy 
allows successfully defending national interests in growing global competition and world economic disparities. Therefore, a country 
shall not only develop a national security concept, relying on world experience, but, above all, to reform its domestic and foreign poli-
cies with a view to protecting all actors.
Keywords: administrative support; legal support; national security; threat, European Union
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Shapoval, R.V..; Nastyuk, V.Y.; Bezpalova, O.I.; Khrystynchenko, N. P. 2018. Path 
towards national security in the European Union: genesis and further, Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 8(1): 45-54.
https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2018.8.1(4)
JEL Classifications: K1, K19
1. Introduction
The situation in the world and its main regions is formed under the influence of an exceptionally complex and 
dynamic process, which is based on the globalization of the world economy and the related revision of the 
whole system of international relations. In view of the continued desire of individual countries, peoples, politi-
cal, religious and other groups, as well as individuals, to achieve their goals by any means, it has been further 
expanded, supplemented by new, previously considered potential threats (Fabuš 2017; Kordík, Kurilovská 
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
2017; Shvetsova et al. 2018; Kunitsyna et al. 2018; Kuril 2018; Limba et al. 2018; Tvaronavičienė 2018; Oho-
tina et al. 2018; Plėta et al. 2018). Recently, there are relatively new sources of external threats in the form of 
international terrorism and organized crime, drug trafficking, smuggling of weapons and military equipment, 
the danger of environmental disasters that require adequate responses (Šišulák 2017; Petrenko et al. 2017; 
Todorov et al. 2018; Njaramba et al. 2018; Lietuvnikė et al. 2018; Zahars, Stivrenieks 2018; Matvejevs 2018). 
The potential for conflict is growing due to the widening gap between rich and poor countries, political and 
religious extremism, aggressive nationalism, separatism and territorial claims, increased religious intolerance 
and xenophobia, high levels of terrorist activity and transnational organized crime, proliferation of weapons 
of mass destruction and uncontrolled proliferation materials and technologies that can be used to produce such 
weapons. There is a clear tendency to increase the vulnerability of all members of the international community 
in the face of a variety of challenges and threats, the range and severity of which are evolving, mutating and 
acquiring a transboundary character. As Wark (2005) wrote, “The threat of security is […] security itself”. In 
his work “Theory of World Security”, K. Booth (2007) puts forward the idea of creating a world security sys-
tem that transcends national boundaries and rejects the “instinctive animal struggle for survival”: “The idea of 
world security is synonymous with freedom of individuals and groups that is compatible with the rational free-
dom of others, and universal moral equality compatible with justified pragmatic inequalities”. World security 
will have to be based on a cosmopolitan democracy, which, in Booth’s (2007) view, “can never be achieved 
through wars and revolutions, because such a new world order does not allow such means”. Thus, the article 
aims to analyze the development of the idea of developing a European defense policy in terms of the attempt of 
the European Union to move towards greater consolidation and greater awareness of the power of interests in 
the areas of defense policy and security.
2. Materials and method
In the field of studying European security, critical security studies are conducted. The term of “critical (or 
non-traditional) studies” refers to a particular area in the field of security research, which differs from the tra-
ditional realistic approach in which the central role in ensuring security is assigned to the state. Critical studies 
focuses on economic, environmental and social security. The main thinkers of critical research are the Welsh, 
Copenhagen and Paris schools. Each of these schools has its own special approaches to the conceptualization 
of security.
The Welsh School is developing within the so-called Emancipatory theory. This current takes its origins in 
the Frankfurt School, whose prominent representatives are T. Adorno, J. Habermas (Singh, 2017). This theory 
was first put forward by K. Booth in the early 1990s. They advocate a universal security system in which the 
individual, not the states and nations, plays a central role. The second trend in non-traditional doctrines is the 
securitization theory, which is developing within the framework of the Copenhagen school. It includes such 
scientists as B. Buzan, O. Waever and J. Wilde. The theory is based on the idea that in international relations 
something becomes an object of urgent policy not because it represents a danger, but because an influential 
actor proclaims it as a serious threat. But securitization exists not only simply due to its popularization by the 
actor, but only after the audience perceives it. By accepting and legitimizing society, the actor can take extraor-
dinary measures and “legitimize the breaking of rules” (Buzan, Waever, & Wilde, 1998). The third direction 
of critical research is the “insecuritization theory” (Balzacq, 2010), developed by the specialists of the Paris 
School – M. Foucault and P. Bourdieu. Supporters of the theory (in particular D. Bigo) argue that “security” is 
what is done to it, that is, how safety is practiced. In this theory, security is not understood as an “anthropologi-
cal necessity” (Burgess, 2010)(as in the emancipation theory) or as an act of public speaking (as in securitiza-
tion theory) but rather perceived as a process of “securitization or insecure of borders, identities and notions 
of order” (Bigo, 2000). As Bigo writes: “Security — in any case not a reflection of the increasing threats in the 
modern era — it is the decrease in the level of acceptability of the other; it is an attempt at insecurities the eve-
ryday lives of professionals and the strengthening of political potential for action” (Bigo, The Mobius Ribbon 
of Internal and External Security(ies), 2001). Paris school theorists question the understanding of the security 
of the Copenhagen school, arguing that securitization is not the result of a successful public act, but every-
day bureaucratic decisions, the use of technology and the Weberian practice of rationalization (Ritzer, 2017). 
46
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
Among the studies, one can also mention the work of J. Coelmont, a member of the Belgian Royal Institute 
of International Affairs and the European Military Committee, entitled “A European Global Security Strategy: 
Offering Seven-League Boots to Become a Global Actor”.
3. Discussion
Institutional mechanism of joint policy and security policy in the EU
The institutional mechanism of the European Union’s CFSP, which has evolved and improved over a long pe-
riod of time, has been shaped quite clearly today. Functions in the field of the CFSP are assigned, to a greater or 
lesser extent, as the main institutions of the EU, and a whole system of special bodies for the implementation 
of the relevant policy of the European Union has been created. The Article 24 of the EU Treaty stipulates that 
the rules and procedures of the common foreign and security policy of the EU are defined and implemented 
by the European Council and the Council of the EU, which adopt resolutions unanimously, unless otherwise 
provided by the Treaties. The European Council, incorporated by the Lisbon treaties into the system of the main 
institutions of the European Union, according to Art. 26 of the Treaty on the European Union, reveals the stra-
tegic interests of the Union, sets goals and defines the general directions of the common foreign and security 
policy, including those with defense implications. And for this purpose, she makes the necessary decisions. The 
decisions of the European Council on the strategic interests and objectives of the Union concern the CFSP and 
other areas of Union foreign policy. At the same time, such decisions may concern the Union’s relations with 
a particular country or region or provide a thematic approach. They define the term and means to be provided 
by the Union and the Member States. The European Council acts unanimously on the recommendation of the 
EU Council, adopted in accordance with the conditions for each sphere (Article 22 of the Treaty on the Euro-
pean Union). If the intergovernmental situation so requires, the President of the European Council convenes its 
extraordinary meeting to determine the strategic directions of the Union’s policy in the light of such develop-
ment. States consult each other within the framework of the European Council and the Council of the EU on 
any matter of foreign policy and security policy of mutual interest with a view to defining a common approach. 
That is, before carrying out any action on the international scene or assuming any obligation that could affect 
the interests of the Union; each Member State should consult other Member States within the framework of the 
European Council or the Council of the EU (Article 32 of the Treaty on the European Union). That is, it is not 
about the right but about the obligation to conduct such consultations. And it is precisely, as stated in this article 
of the Treaty, that, by converging their actions, Member States provide the Union with the ability to defend 
its interests and values i n the international arena, while demonstrating mutual solidarity. The President of the 
European Council also plays a role in the European Union’s CFSP. In particular, according to Part 6 of Article 
15 of the Treaty on European Union, the President of the European Council, at his own level and in his status, 
represents the Union in the external affairs of the CFSP, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representa-
tive for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Council of the European Union (composed of the Ministers of 
Foreign Affairs of the Member States), together with the European Council, defines and implements the EU’s 
activities in the field of CFSP. Hence, according to part 3 of the Article 26 of the Treaty on the EU, the EU Coun-
cil is developing a common foreign and security policy and adopts the decisions necessary for its definition and 
implementation on the basis of general directions and strategic decisions established by the European Council.
Thus, when the international situation requires operational action by the Union, the Council of the EU makes 
appropriate decisions. They define their goals, limits, means, which must be made available to the Union, 
and, if necessary, their duration and conditions of implementation. The Council adopts its decisions defining 
the position of the Union on specific issues of a geographical or thematic nature, and Member States, in turn, 
should ensure the consistency of their national policies with the positions of the Union (Articles 28 and 29 
of the Treaty on the European Union). (On the special feature of legal acts in the field of CFSP, in particular 
those adopted by the European Council and the EU Council, see below). In turn, Article 30 of the Treaty on 
EU stipulates that, for the consideration of the Council of the EU, any questions, initiatives or proposals relat-
ing to the CFSP, such as each Member State, and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and 
Security Policy, both on their own and on support from the EU Commission. In this case, in cases requiring a 
47
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
speedy solution, the High Representative, on his own initiative or at the request of a Member State, convenes 
an extraordinary meeting of the Council for 48 hours, or in case of absolute necessity, within a shorter period of 
time. And in important cases, on the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and 
Security Policy, the EU Council may appoint a special representative, which she gives a mandate in relation to 
certain political issues (Article 33 of the Treaty on the European Union). In addition, the Council of the EU can 
conclude international CFSP agreements with other states or international organizations in accordance with the 
general rules for concluding such agreements in the field of external relations of the EU. The Council of the EU 
should also decide on the establishment of rules for the protection of individuals with regard to the processing 
of personal data by Member States when carrying out their activities in the field of the CFSP (Article 39 of the 
Treaty on the European Union).
The Treaty of Amsterdam introduced the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and 
Security Policy, which was performed by the Secretary General of the Council of the EU, and was given wider 
powers after the entry into force of the Lisbon treaties. For the first time, the post of High Representative in 
1999 was occupied by J. Solana, who, thanks to his personal qualities and experience at the post of NATO 
leader (which respectively affected the intensification of the military component of the EU), was able to give 
the CFSP a special status commensurate with the other pillars of the European Union. According to Article 18 
of the Treaty on the European Union, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security 
Policy shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, in agreement with the Chair-
man of the Commission. High Representative directly implements the foreign policy and security policy of the 
Union and contributes to the development of this policy, which he carries out as an authorized representative 
of the Council. He applies the same actions to a common security and defense policy. The High Representative 
chairs the EU Council on Foreign Relations and is one of the Vice-Chairmen of the Commission. It ensures the 
continuity of the Union’s foreign policy. In the framework of the Commission, he is responsible for the duties 
that are common to this body in the field of external relations, and for coordination of other aspects of foreign 
policy of the Union (parts 3 and 4 of Article 18 of the Treaty on the European Union). Under the draft Treaty 
establishing a Constitution for Europe, the High Representative was to be called the EU Minister for Foreign 
Affairs, who emphasized the great ambitions of the authors of this draft treaty. The European External Action 
Service is assisted by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy in the exercise of his 
powers. According to Part 3 of Article 27 of the Treaty, this service cooperates with the diplomatic authorities 
of the Member States and includes officials of the competent services of the General Secretariat of the Council 
and the Commission, as well as staffed by the diplomatic authorities of the Member States. The organization 
and functioning of the European Foreign Policy Service was established by the EU Council Decision in May 
2010 (EU Council Decision 2010/427). In this document, in particular Article 2 outlined the main tasks of the 
European External Action Service: support to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and 
Security Policy in the implementation of his mandate in the field of CFSP and SABO, in his activities as Chair-
man of the EU Council on Foreign Affairs, as well as in his activities as deputy Chairman of the Commission. In 
addition, the European External Action Service should assist the President of the European Commission and the 
Commission as a whole, as well as European Parliament in the exercise of their functions in the field of external 
relations. Certain competences in the CFSP area are also endowed by the EU Commission and the European 
Parliament. Regarding the EU Commission, on the one hand, if one takes into account the provisions of a sepa-
rate section of the EU Treaty on the CFSP, on the one hand, it is not mentioned very often, mainly with regard to 
the activities of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who at the same 
time is the vice chairman Commission, but, on the other hand, the Commission has more powers in the field 
of foreign policy through the prism of the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (negotiations 
on the conclusion of international treaties, representation of the EU in intergovernmental organizations, etc.).
In particular, in the context of the provisions relating to the CFSP, with the support of the Commission, the High 
Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the Union and each Member State may submit to the 
Council of the EU any question pertaining to the CFSP and may transmit it to its consideration, respectively, 
of initiatives and proposals. In a way, the CFSP activities of the Commission relate to the implementation of 
the budget of the European Union in this area. According to the provisions of the EU Treaty, the competence 
48
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
of the European Parliament is also very limited in the CFSP. It is noted that the High Representative for For-
eign Affairs and Security Policy regularly consults with the European Parliament on the main aspects and 
basic priorities of the CFSP and the WSIS and also informs him of the ways in which these policies are being 
developed. The High Representative will ensure that the European Parliament’s opinion is properly taken into 
account and that its special representatives may be involved in informing the European Parliament (Article 36 
of the Treaty on the European Union). The same article states that the European Parliament can ask questions 
or make recommendations to the Council and High Representative. Twice a year in the European Parliament, 
discussions should be organized on the progress made in the implementation of the common foreign and se-
curity policy, including the common security and defense policy. The European Parliament also has a certain 
impact on the CFSP through the control of the EU budget (since part of the expenditure on the CFSP is financed 
from the EU budget).The Lisbon treaties have largely limited the jurisdiction of the European Union Court in 
the field of CFSP, in comparison with other areas of EU competence. According to Article 24 of the Treaty on 
the European Union, the Court has no jurisdiction over the provisions relating to the CFSP, with the exception 
of jurisdiction over compliance with Article 40 of this Treaty and control over the legality of certain decisions 
provided for in the second paragraph of Article 275 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. In the first case, 
it is a matter of the fact that the implementation of the common foreign and security policy of the EU cannot 
influence the application of procedures and limits of authority of institutions in other areas of EU competence, 
in particular, provided for in relevant articles 3-6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, and, conversely, 
the implementation of these policies does not affect the application of the procedures and respective powers of 
the institutions established for the exercise of the powers of the Union in the field of the CFSP (Article 40 of 
the Treaty on the European Union). With regard to the second case, the extension of the jurisdiction of the EU 
Court to the CFSP, then it has jurisdiction to take decisions on claims of individuals and legal entities, on the 
acts to which they are addressed or which are directly and directly related to them, and also with regard to acts 
which directly affect them, do not require implementation measures or which impose any restrictive measures 
against them (Articles 263, 275 of the Treaty on the European Union). In addition to these provisions of the 
Treaties, which clearly provide for the extension of the competence of the EU Court to the CFSP, it can also be 
argued that, according to Part 11 of Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relat-
ing to the conclusion of international agreements, a Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the 
Commission may obtain a conclusion from the Court as to the conformity of the proposed agreement with the 
Treaties, in particular if this international agreement regulates matters relating to the CFSP. And in the case of a 
negative judgment of the Court, this agreement may only come into force when it is amended, or a revision of 
the contracts will be made. In the institutional framework of the CFSP, in addition to those mentioned above, 
there is still a number of special bodies that are set up to better achieve the goals and objectives of the European 
Union in this area.
The Committee on Political and Security Affairs, as a body in the field of the CFSP, under such a name, was 
included in the Treaty on European Union by the Treaty of Nice (formerly the Political Committee). It operates 
on the basis of Article 38 of the Treaty on the EU and Council Decision 2001/78 as of 22 January 2001. Func-
tions and tasks of this body are very important. It is worth mentioning that the Committee of Permanent Repre-
sentatives - COREPER, which consists of the ambassadors of the EU member states (COREPER II) and their 
deputies to the EU (COREPER I), plays a significant role in organizing the work of the Council of the EU. It is 
during the meetings of both committees that the Council of the EU prepares meetings, reaches agreement on the 
majority of normative acts, which are subsequently adopted by the Council, and coordinates the activities of nu-
merous expert groups. It was these functions in the CFSP and was carried out by the Political Committee, which 
formally was an independent body. Similarly, the situation today is regulated by the Lisbon treaties. According 
to Article 38 of the Treaty on the European Union, the Committee on Policy and Security, without violating 
the requirements of Article 240 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (on the activities of 
a separate Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Governments of the Member States), monitors the 
international situation in the fields related to the CFSP, and contributes to the definition of policy through the 
preparation of conclusions for the Council at its request, at the request of the High Representative The Union 
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or on its own initiative. The Committee also monitors the process of 
implementing a coherent policy, while not reducing the authority of the High Representative.
49
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
It is important that, within the framework of the CFSP, the Committee on Political and Security Affairs under 
the responsibility of the Council of the EU and the High Representative carries out political control and stra-
tegic management of the crisis management operations mentioned, in particular, Article 49 of this Treaty says 
that the Committee, in close and constant contact with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs 
and Security Policy under the leadership of the Council, ensures the coordination of civilian and military as-
pects of these missions (the so-called “Petersberg Missions”). In fact, with the aim and for the duration of such 
crisis management operations, the Council of the EU may authorize the Committee to take appropriate deci-
sions regarding political control over the operation and its strategic direction. Meetings within the Committee 
are held at the level of high-level officials of the EU member states in the rank of ambassadors, mainly twice 
a week. The Committee established three subsidiary bodies: the Political and Military Groups, the Committee 
on Civil Aspects of Crisis Management, and the so-called “Nicolades Group”, which prepares the Commit-
tee’s meetings. The Strategic Planning and Early Warning Unit was created on the basis of the Declaration of 
the Sixth Amsterdam Treaty within the framework of the apparatus and led by the High Representative of the 
Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, in particular, to coordinate the work of other Union institutions 
in shaping foreign policy. Its competence includes the creation of a network for obtaining and processing infor-
mation from all EU structures and conducting an independent policy planning of possible strategic EU actions 
in the field of CFSP. Within the framework of the Committee on Political and Security Affairs, a Committee of 
European Correspondents, which includes designated staff of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the EU Mem-
ber States, is responsible for the exchange of information between the Member States, the General Secretariat 
of the Council of the EU, the Commission and the diplomatic representations of the Member States.
The Military Committee and the Military Staff were established by Council Decision 2001/79 as of 22 Janu-
ary 2001 “On the Establishment of the European Union Military Committee” and “On the Establishment of a 
European Union Military Staff” for the management of the Rapid Reaction Force.
A number of auxiliary agencies have also been set up within the framework of the CFSP, which, in the main, 
contribute to the goals and objectives of the common security and defense policy. The Agency for Defense 
Capabilities, Research, Procurement and Arms Development (European Defense Agency) was established by 
Council Decision 2004/551 as of 12 July 2004. Article 42 of the Treaty on the European Union calls on the 
European Defense Agency one of the main tasks of the EU to improve the military capabilities of the Member 
States. To this end, it establishes operational requirements, promotes measures for their satisfaction, contributes 
to the identification and implementation of any measures that are useful for strengthening the industrial and 
technological base of the defense sector, participates in the development of a European policy on potentials and 
weapons, and helps the Council to assess degree of improvement of military potentials.
The European Union’s satellite center, established by Council Decision 2001/55 as of 20 July 2004, has become 
an essential element of the development of a common EU security and defense policy, in particular, for moni-
toring crisis situations. In particular, the positive experience of its operation was noted during the promotion 
of EU operations in the Balkans and in joint activities with the United Nations. The EU Institute of Security 
Studies, established in accordance with the decision of the Council of the EU 2001/554 as of July 20, 2001, with 
a focus in Paris to conduct research, exchange scientific advances and prepare expert opinions for other EU in-
stitutions in the field of European security. The EU Operational Center operates in the EU Military Staff system 
and contributes to the EU’s capabilities in planning and providing military operations. Lastly, it is important to 
note that the EU Council Decision 2004/197 as of 23 February 2004 established a special mechanism for the 
management of the use of common European Union operations that have an impact on military and defense is-
sues, i.e. Athena. This mechanism is designed to manage funds to cover common costs for relevant military or 
defense missions. Athena is used within the framework of a special committee, which includes representatives 
of the states that make financial contributions for the implementation of this operation. Thus, despite the rather 
complicated institutional framework of the CFSP, it can be argued that the European Council, the Council of 
the European Union and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy with 
the European External Action Service have the main significance in the process of functioning and decision-
making in this area.
50
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
Globalization and its meaning for the EU
The European Union, which today brings together advanced Western democracies, is a well-established en-
tity that objectively attracts the states of Eastern and Southeastern Europe, which consciously have chosen 
a democratic direction for their development and wish to occupy a worthy place in the European economic 
space. The process of strengthening European integration as an independent factor is of particular importance 
for states in the East of the continent and the surrounding regions whose countries seek to deepen their ties with 
the European Union. According to E. Nolte, the driving force behind EU enlargement is nothing more than the 
ideological commitment of many Europeans to the concept of an enlargement of the Union, if it takes place 
at a minimal cost and leaves undemocratic and authoritarian beyond the bounds of the country’s enlargement 
(Nolte, MacLehose, & McKee, 2004). The effects of globalization can also be attributed to the leveling of the 
state’s leading position in ensuring the security of the society, especially internal security. Thus, the security 
object is expanding, justifying, on the one hand, EU involvement in the affairs of other unstable regions, such 
as the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. On the other hand, the priority of the individual over the state 
prepares a fertile platform for implementing projects to create a world government that cares about the safety 
of all people without exception on the planet.
Research in the direction of European security
The European Security Doctrine was formed relatively recently, and its creation was the result of both internal, 
related to the logic of EU development and external factors. One of the most important think tanks in Europe 
in the field of global security is the European Union Institute for Security Studies. The European Council on 
Foreign Relations is another influential research center in the field of security. In 2010, the Council published 
the article named “The illusion of order and the formation of a multipolar Europe”. It focuses on assessing 
the geopolitical situation in Europe, which, in the opinion of the authors, has turned into a multipolar system: 
“Although Europeans welcomed the birth of a multipolar world, they almost did not notice that in parallel is 
formed and a multipolar Europe, which is characterized by an increasing competition between the main forces 
of the continent – the EU, Russia and Turkey – for influence in the newly established States, formed after the 
collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia” (Krastev & Leonard, 2017). In 2008, the European Council 
issued a new document entitled “Ensuring Security in a Changing World”. The principles of European secu-
rity remained virtually unchanged: a stronger, more united and capable Europe, participation in the life of its 
neighbors, as well as cooperation with partners, to which the other members of the BRICS - Brazil and South 
Africa - were added.
Conclusion
Given the events of recent years, security issues in Europe are of particular relevance. European countries are 
building national security systems based on own national interests, vision and analysis of political processes 
taking place in the world, as well as political experience and the professional competence of political elites.
Many countries in Europe are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Euro-Atlantic 
Alliance is a significant component of the national security systems of the dominant number of countries in 
Central and Eastern Europe. Considering the dynamism of the integral processes in Europe, the countries with 
the greatest security load are among those countries.
National security systems in Europe differ in the role of national security actors. The approaches of the leading 
European countries differ in terms of the geography of national security interests. The conceptual documents 
of the European countries identify the role of intelligence as a strategic tool in preventing threats to national 
security.
51
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
References
Balzacq, T. (2010). Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203868508
Bigo, D. (2000). When Two Become One: Internal and external securitisation in Europe. In M. Kelstrup, & M. Williams, International 
Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration: Power, Security, and Community (pp. 171-204). London and New York: 
Routledge. ISBN: 978-0415214162
Bigo, D. (2001). The Mobius Ribbon of Internal and External Security(ies). In M. Albert, D. Jacobsen, & Y. Lapid, Identities, Borders, 
Orders –Rethinking International Relations Theory (pp. 91-136). London: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN: 978-0-8166-3607-5
Bigo, D., & Tsoukala, A. (2017, August 26). Understanding (In)Security. Retrieved from didierbigo.com: http://didierbigo.com/ 
wp-content/uploads/2016/03/UnderstandingInsecurity.pdf
Biskop, S. (2010). Handbook on CSDP: The Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union. Vienna: Directorate for 
Security Policy of the Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports of the Republic of Austria. :https://doi.org/10.2855/414003
Bonditti, P., Bigo, D., & Gros, F. (2017). Foucault and the Modern International: Silences and Legacies for the Study of World Politics. 
Berlin: Springer. ISBN: 978-1-137-56158-9
Booth, K. (2007). Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840210
Burgess, J. (2010). The Ethical Subject of Security: Geopolitical Reason and the Threat Against Europe. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN: 
9780415499828
Buzan, B., Waever, O., & Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN: 
1-55587-603-X
Coelmont, J. (2017, August 26). A European Global Security Strategy: Offering Seven-League Boots to Become a Global Actor. Re-
trieved from aei.pitt.edu: http://aei.pitt.edu/43288/1/SPB45.pdf
EUR-LEX. (2012, October 26). the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Retrieved 
from eur-lex.europa.eu: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012M%2FTXT
Fabuš, M. 2017. Current development of business environment in Slovakia and Czech Republic, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability 
Issues 5(1): 127-137. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2017.5.1(10)
Gruszczak, A. (2016). Intelligence Security in the European Union: Building a Strategic Intelligence Community. Berlin: Springer. 
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-45512-3
Hokovský, R. (2016). The Concept of Border Security in the Schengen Area. Central European Journal of International and Security 
Studies, 10(2), 72-93. Retrieved from: https://static.cejiss.org/data/uploaded/1474975444714058/4%20article.pdf
Hollis, S. (2010). The necessity of protection: Transgovernmental networks and EU security governance. Cooperation and Conflict, 
45(3), 312-330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836710378071
Jones, R. (1999). Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Retrieved from: https://www.research-
gate.net/profile/Richard_Jones36/publication/265023798_Security_Strategy_and_Critical_Theory/links/54f43f870cf299c8d9e66640/
Security-Strategy-and-Critical-Theory.pdf
Keohane, J., & Nye, R. (1971). Transnational Relations and World Politics: An Introduction. Transnational Relations and World Poli-
tics, 25(3), 329-349. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706043
Kirchner, E., & Sperling, J. (2009). EU Security Governance. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 47, 677–678. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2009.02000_3.x
Kirchner, E., Fanoulis, E., & Dorussen, H. (2015). Civil security in the EU: national persistence versus EU ambitions? European Secu-
rity, 24(2), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2014.968133
Kirshner, J. (2013). Globalization and National Security. London: Routledge. ISBN: 978-0415955119 
Koenig, N. (2016). EU Security Policy and Crisis Management: A Quest for Coherence. New York: Routledge. ISBN: 978-1138961340
Kordík, M.; Kurilovská, L. 2017. Protection of the national financial system from the money laundering and terrorism financing, Entre-
52
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
preneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(2): 243-262. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2017.5.2(7)
Krastev, I., & Leonard, M. (2017, August 26). The Spectre of a Multipolar Europe. The Illusion of Order and the Rise of Multipolar 
Europe. European Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from www.ecfr.eu: http://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/Multipolar%20Europe%20
English.pdf
Kunitsyna, N.; Britchenko, I.; Kunitsyn, I. 2018. Reputational risks, value of losses and financial sustainability of commercial banks, En-
trepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(4): 943-955.  https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.5.4(17)
Kuril, J. 2018. Public administration for safe and secure environment: case of Slovak Republic, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability 
Issues 5(3): 493-501.  https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.5.3(6)
Lavenex, S., & Wagner, W. (2007). Which European Public Order? Sources of Imbalance in the European Area of Freedom, Security 
and Justice. European Security, 16(3), 225 - 243. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662830701753972
Lavenex, S., & Wichmann, N. (2013). Political Order. In S. Wolff, N. Wichmann, & G. Mounier, The External Dimension of Jus-
tice and Home Affairs: A Different Security Agenda for the European Union? (pp. 81-86). Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.1080/07036330802503817
Leese, M., & Wittendorp, S. (2017). Security/Mobility : Politics of Movement. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN: 
9781526107459
Lietuvnikė, M. M.; Vasilis Vasiliauskas, A.; Vasilienė-Vasiliauskienė, V.; Sabaitytė, J. 2018. Peculiarities of illegal immigrant’s intru-
sions into road freight transport units in the France - UK corridor, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(3): 634-647. https://doi.
org/10.9770/jesi.2018.5.3(16)
Limba, T.; Agafonov, K.; Paukštė, L.; Damkus, M.; Plėta, T. 2017. Peculiarities of cyber security management in the process of internet 
voting implementation, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(2): 368-402. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2017.5.2(15)
Lutterbeck, D. (2005). Blurring the Dividing Line: The Convergence of Internal and External Security in Western Europe. European 
Security, 14(2), 231-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662830500336193
Matvejevs, A. 2018. Effective crime control as guarantor of public security, Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 7(3): 
417-426. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2018.7.3(4)
Mosser, M. (2014). Embracing “embedded security”: the OSCE’s understated but significant role in the European securityarchitecture. 
European Security, 24(4), 579-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2015.1054376
Njaramba, J.; Chigeza, P.; Whitehouse, H. 2018. Barriers and challenges experienced by migrant African women entrepreneurs in North 
Queensland, Australia, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(4): 1054-1068. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.5.4(25)
Nolte, E., MacLehose, L., & McKee, M. (2004). Health, Policy and European Union Enlargement. n.a.: Open University Press. Re-
trieved from: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/98392/E82999.pdf
Ohotina, A.; Lavrinenko, O.; Ignatjeva, S.; Lonska, J. 2018. Socio-economic security as a determinant of regional differences in the 
investment climate in the region, Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 7(3): 427-438. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2018.7.3(5)
Petrenko, E.; Iskakov, N.; Metsyk, O.; Khassanova, T. 2017. Ecosystem of entrepreneurship: risks related to loss of trust in stability of 
economic environment in Kazakhstan, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues5(1): 105-115.  https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2017.5.1(8)
Plėta, T.; Karasov, S.; Jakštas, T. 2018. The means to secure critical energy infrastructure in the context of hybrib warfare: the case of 
Ukraine, Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 7(3): 567-578. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2018.7.3(16)
Ritzer, G. (2017, August 26). The Weberian Theory of Rationalization and the McDonaldization of Contemporary Society. Retrieved 
from pdfs.semanticscholar.org: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3db2/43f52c96cdcfd98f022349b35a9a14ffbe61.pdf
Shvetsova, O. A.; Rodionova, E. A.; Epstein, M. Z. 2018. Evaluation of investment projects under uncertainty: multi-criteria approach 
using interval data, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(4): 914-928.  https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.5.4(15)
Singh, R. P. (2017, August 26). Critical Theory of Juergen Habermas: A Critique of Enlightment Rationality. Retrieved from www.
unipune.ac.in: http://www.unipune.ac.in/snc/cssh/ipq/english/IPQ/26-30%20volumes/26-3/26-3-6.pdf
Šišulák, S. 2017. Userfocus - tool for criminality control of social networks at both the local and international level, Entrepreneurship 
and Sustainability Issues 5(2): 297-314. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2017.5.2(10)
Slaughter, A.-M. (1997). The real new world order. Foreign Affairs, 183-197. Retrieved from: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/arti-
53
JOURNAL OF SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2029-7017 print/ISSN 2029-7025 online
cles/1997-09-01/real-new-world-order
Standler, C. (2014). Mapping out the institutional geography of external security in the EU. European Security, 24(3), 402-419. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2015.1028187
The General Secretariat of the Council of Europe. (2017, August 26). Internal Security Strategy for teh European Union: Towards 
a European Security Model. Retrieved from www.consilium.europa.eu: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/librairie/
PDF/QC3010313ENC.pdf
Todorov, G. N.; Kalinina, A. V.; Rybakova, A. I. 2018. Impact of labour migration on entrepreneurship ecosystem: case of Eurasian 
Economic Union, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 5(4): 992-1007. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.5.4(20)
Trybus, M. (2014). Buying Defence and Security in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511751462
Tvaronavičienė, M. 2018. Toward efficient policymaking: forecasts of vulnerability to external global threats, Journal of Security and 
Sustainability Issues 7(3): 591-600.  https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2018.7.3(18)
Vaughan-Williams, N. (2008). Borders, Territory, Law. International Political Sociology, 4(2), 322-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-
5687.2008.00054.x
Wark, M. (2005). Securing Security. Kritikos: International and interdisciplinary journal of postmodern cultural sound, text and image, 
2. ISBN: 1552-5112
Zahars, V.; Stivrenieks, M. 2018. Security, surveillance and re-socialization aspects in center for drug addicts of Olaine city prison in 
Latvia, Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 7(4): 643-656.  https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2018.7.4(3)
 
54