Journal of Defense Management
Open Access

Types of Common Security and Defensive Policy

Brett Watson^{* *}Correspondence: Brett Watson, Department of Defense Management, Jamia Millia Islamia University, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi, India, Email:

Author info »

Description

The European Union's (EU) course of action in the areas of defence and crisis management is known as the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), and it also plays a significant role in the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) [1]. In accordance with the tenets of the UN Charter, the CSDP include the deployment of military or civilian missions to uphold international security, avoid violence, and preserve peace. The armed forces of the member states who have been seconded to the EU carry out military tasks [2]. The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), in which 25 of the 27 national military forces pursue structural integration, and collective self-defense among member nations are also included in the CSDP. The European Defence Union (EDU), under the leadership of the Union's High Representative (HR/VP), Josep Borell, is another name for the CSDP structure, which consists of the following

• The General Directorate for the Defense Industry of the European Commission.

• The Crisis Management and Planning Directorate (CMPD) of the External Action Service (EEAS) and

• The permanent Operation Headquarters (OHQs) for command and control (C2) at the military/civilian strategic level, i.e. the MPCC and CPCC, as well as a number of preparatory bodies for the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC), such as the Military Committee (EUMC), as well as four organisations, such as the Defence Agency (EDA)

The NATO Command Structure (NCS), which was created for territorial defence, is far larger than the command and control systems of the EU. It has been decided that the EU's missions may be carried out using NATO's Allied Command Operations (ACO) [3]. The MPCC is the first permanent military OHQ of the EU, having been founded in 2017 and set to be strengthened in 2020. In addition, the recently established European Defence Fund (EDF) is the first occasion when international defence programmes are funded from the EU budget.

For the most part, decisions involving the CSDP must be unanimously approved by the Foreign Affairs Council before being submitted by the High Representative and carried out by the High Representative.

Types of common security

Other governments' activities, violent non-state actors, organised crime organisations like drug cartels, as well as the results of natural disasters, are all potential sources of national insecurity [4]. Climate change, economic inequality and marginalisation, political exclusion, and militarization are systemic, potentially international drivers of insecurity.

Economic security, energy security, physical security, environmental security, food security, border security, and cyber security are some of the aspects of a nation state's security [5]. Aspects of national power are directly correlated with these aspects.

National security defense

Infrastructure security refers to the protection given to infrastructure, particularly vital infrastructure, such as dams, power plants, seaports, oil refineries, hospitals, bridges, transit hubs, network communications, media, and water systems [6]. Infrastructure security is to lessen the vulnerability of these systems and structures to terrorism, sabotage, and environmental degradation.

Many countries have developed specialised security services to guard buildings, like the United States Federal Protective Service, as well as specialised transport police, like the British Transport Police, to oversee the protection of vital infrastructure. These organisations are typically run through the Ministry of Interior/ Home Affairs [7]. In the United States, there are also commercial transportation security agencies like the Amtrak Police. The vital operation of a nation depends on critical infrastructure. Damage that is intentional or accidental can have a negative effect on the economy and vital services among the dangers to infrastructure.

Terrorism: Those responsible for the purposeful targeting of crucial infrastructure do so for political purposes [8]. The hospital and central station in Mumbai were purposefully targeted in the November 2008 bombings.

Sabotage: Such as former employees, anti-government organisations, or environmental organisations. Refer to Protesters Seize Control of Bangkok International Airport [9].

Information warfare: Private individuals hacking for personal gain or nations launching attacks to collect data and harm a nation's cyberinfrastructure. Examples include the cyberattacks on Estonia and the 2008 South Ossetia War [10].

Natural disaster: Critical infrastructures including oil pipelines, water systems, and electricity grids can be seriously damaged by hurricanes and other natural disasters. For instances, look at Hurricane Ike and the financial impact of Hurricane Katrina.

Conclusion

The integrity of ecosystems and the biosphere, commonly referred to as environmental security or ecological security, is important, especially in light of their ability to support a variety of living forms. As the impact of ecological harm caused by people has increased, the security of ecosystems has garnered more attention. Ecosystem degradation, such as topsoil erosion, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate change, have an impact on economic security and can trigger mass migration, which puts more strain on resources in other places. Since most emerging nations depend heavily on agriculture and are in the process of industrialising, ecological security is also crucial. Climate change has a particularly negative impact on agriculture. The nation's economy is impacted by this influence, which in turn has an impact on national security.

References

1. Gupta R. A comparative perspective on the causes of terrorism. Int Stud. 1998; 35(1): 23-53.

   [Google Scholar][Crossref]

2. MacDonald E. Book Review–Paul Wilkinson's Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response-Review of Paul Wilkinson, Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response (London, Frank Cass Publishers, 2001, Hardback Edition:£ 42.50, ISBN: 0-7146-5139-7). GLJ. 2002; 3(12).

   [Google Scholar]

3. Portal SA. India: Terrorist, Insurgent, and Extremist Groups. 2018: 10.

   [Google Scholar]

4. Mahadevan P. A Decade on from the 2008 Mumbai Attack: Reviewing the Question of State-Sponsorship. 2015.

   [Google Scholar]

5. Raswan S. Cross Border Terrorism in India a Study with Reference to International Regime. 2015.

   [Google Scholar]

6. Duke S. The elusive quest for European security: From EDC to CFSP. Springer. 1999.

   [Google Scholar]

7. Engberg K. A European defence union by 2025? Work in progress. Svenska institutet for europapolitiska studier (Sieps). 2021.

   [Google Scholar] 

8. Zemer L, Pardo S. European Union Law as Foreign Law. V and J Transnat'l L. 2021.

   [Google Scholar]  

9. Sabatino E. The European defence fund: a step towards a single market for defence?. J Eur Integr. 2022.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] 

10. Charlotte EN. European Union Citizenship–Ground of an Active Democracy. Int J Acad Res. 2013.

    [Google Scholar]