NATO and ESDP: Institutional Complexities and Political Realities
With 50 years’ seniority over the ESDP, and despite its austere origins, NATO transformed itself during the 20th century into a political-bureaucratic machine in search of a more appropriate international role.
All too frequently, when analysts focus on the relations between the two main security actors in the Euro-Atlantic area, they refer to ‘the EU and NATO’. They should of course refer to ‘the ESDP and NATO.’ This may seem like a minor point but it is a crucial one. The European Union (EU) per se does not have a relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), nor indeed should it. The two entities are different in their membership, their essence, their raison d’être , their overall objectives, structures, functioning, activities and history. Any direct bilateral agenda is difficult to imagine. There does exist a ‘relationship’ between, on the one hand, the EU’s security and defense activities, since 1999 subsumed under the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) and managed by the EU’s Political and Security Committee (PSC), and, on the other hand, NATO, represented by the North Atlantic Council (NAC). Other interactions also take place, within this general ESDP-NATO framework, between political and military officials from both sides – at all levels. It is usually this interaction between ESDP and NATO that is, in effect, analysed in the literature on ‘the EU and NATO.’ There is a widely shared consensus among analysts and politicians that this relationship is unsatisfactory if not actually dysfunctional. Most agree that there is an urgent need to ensure that ESDP and NATO should cooperate to the maximum wherever and whenever they are involved together in operations; that they should avoid competition and rivalry; that greater coherence and synergy are both logical and possible.
Berlin Plus
The functional relationship between NATO and ESDP is governed by the Berlin Plus arrangements of 2003. In reality, these arrangements work reasonably well, on the ground, wherever they apply. At present, that means only in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH). With respect to BiH, for example, NATO’s Deputy Supreme Allied Command Europe (DSACEUR), as operational commander of the European Union Force Althea in BiH (EUFOR-Althea), interacts regularly with the EU’s Political and Security Committee and facilitates liaison between it and the NAC. The Secretaries General of both the EU and NATO meet at least monthly to talk through issues of complementarity between the two entities and missions. There are liaison teams on the ground to smooth relations between staff members from both entities and there are daily contacts between representatives in BiH from both sides. […]
OUTLINE
- Berlin Plus
- Political, functional and institutional confusion
- Different historical origins and trajectories
- The politics of collective security and defense
Jolyon Howorth is Professor Emeritus of European Politics at the University of Bath and Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
NATO and ESDP: Institutional Complexities and Political Realities
Author(s)
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
A New Path for Europe
The construction of the European Union is historically inseparable from the emergence, at the end of World War II, of an Atlantic world dominated by the United States. Successive enlargements and the revision of U.S. policy are undermining the concepts upon which the European Union has been built since the fall of the USSR. It is undoubtedly time to return to a path of more diverse groupings, corresponding to the levels of commitment and the interests of the states of the Old Continent.
How Technology Is Reshaping the World Order
The central role of technology in the competition between the major powers is fueling an ever-more intense rivalry. Artificial intelligence is enabling large corporations to accrue unprecedented power, with consequences for states and even for international conflict. However, states do have tools at their disposal to regulate these developments. In this international competition, Europe has a strong hand, but must be prepared to play its cards in order to create a new kind of international cooperation.
Reflections on A Darkening World
The system that emerged after the Second World War to regulate international relations is now moribund. Russia and China may have weakened it, but it seems that Donald Trump’s United States may deliver the fatal blow. The prevailing atmosphere is one of power struggles, and the rise of nationalisms is fraught with danger. The artificial intelligence revolution also needs to be factored into this equation, as it has a strong bearing on how much power different players can exert. In this respect, Europe must ensure it does not get left behind.
1936-2026: 90th Anniversary of the Journal "Politique étrangère"
Founded in 1936 and published by the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri), Politique étrangère, France’s longest-running journal of international relations, is set to publish a special issue in early June 2026. Bringing together distinguished French and international contributors, this issue aims to provide an overview of an uncertain world and its possible futures. In an unprecedented undertaking, Politique étrangère brings together a wide range of international contributions in an effort to grasp a global landscape that is at once open and fragmented, in all its diversity and dynamism. Through in-depth analyses of cross-cutting challenges, reflections on methods and structures of governance, and projections into futures feared or envisioned by creators from around the world—ranging from alternative histories to speculative thought experiments—the various approaches complement and challenge one another, opening up broad avenues for reflection.