Conference Agenda

The outbreak of war in Ukraine on 24 February came as a shock to Europe. After 75 years of sustained peace, war has returned to the European continent in blatant violation of EU values and Europe's security. The EU has been unwavering in its support for Ukraine from the outset and has condemned Russia's brutal aggression in the strongest possible terms. Meanwhile, the EU has taken unprecedented action under its CFSP and CSDP, showing unexpected resolve and determination.

Russia's military aggression against an independent and sovereign state has prompted the EU to take a significant step forward in legal integration: the EU has updated its security strategies, broken a number of defence taboos and adopted innovative measures. However, the war in Ukraine has also highlighted the EU's setbacks in the integration process. The EU's CFSP governance system is still mainly based on intergovernmental mechanisms that undermine the EU's credibility as a security provider. This is even more evident when compared to other superpowers that have supported Ukraine.

This article aims to analyse the impact of the war in Ukraine on European integration in the field of CFSP. As this article suggests, the war in Ukraine has revealed both improvements in CFSP integration and weaknesses in the current CFSP legal framework. Against this background, this article also aims to provide a roadmap on how the EU can advance its CFSP integration process in the aftermath of the war in Ukraine. In particular, it will identify the solutions offered by the EU Treaties to the dysfunctions of the current CFSP decision-making procedure and voting rules, as well as the prospects for CFSP reform in the light of, inter alia, the Conference on the Future of Europe.

While successful leadership in European integration has been analysed and explained to some extent, the reasons for its failure are still under-researched. Therefore, we ask in this paper how and why a leadership vacuum in regional integration comes about. Drawing on rational-functionalist propositions, we argue that the emergence of leadership fails if the realisation of a collective goal requires the would-be leader to compromise their individual interests. Empirically, we apply this argument to Germany’s role in the European Union (EU). While there is little doubt that Germany is in great demand to take the lead, the reasons for its frequent leadership rejection are puzzling – especially as recent research has shown that the German political elite would actually endorse a leading role for its country in the EU. Based on a fine-grained causal mechanism, the systematic collection and in-depth analysis of 220 media articles, and rigorous process tracing, we therefore compare Germany’s role in two EU crisis policies: the completion of Europe’s Banking Union – i.e. the European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) – and the supply of arms to Ukraine. The results demonstrate in detail how vested interests prevent the provision of leadership for the benefit of all. Regarding Germany’s role in Europe, the paper thus highlights why many of the leadership demands directed at the EU’s largest member state might be misled. With regard to leadership research and practice in general, the paper provides an explanation for leadership vacuums in regional and international politics, and cautions against treating leadership as an altruistic sacrifice.

Social identity theory suggests that an external threat, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, can increase identification with a group and foster a shared sense of identity. While initial research has shown that the shock of Russian aggression positively affects support for the European Union (EU) among European citizens on average, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of how variation in threat perceptions relates to identity-based support for the EU. Using survey data from 16 countries collected just five weeks after the invasion, we show an increase in identity-related EU support among those most concerned about the Russian threat. By applying machine learning techniques and a causal forest algorithm, we further reveal the heterogeneity of this relationship. Individuals with an exclusive national identity, who otherwise express little sense of pride in belonging to the EU, register a much larger increase in European identification in response to the Russian threat. Notably, this effect is particularly pronounced among respondents from Central and Eastern Europe. By highlighting that even individuals with an exclusive national identity can be swayed to feel attached to the EU in times of crisis, our study contributes to understanding the complex nature of identity-based support for the EU.

The war in Ukraine has had far-reaching consequences, extending beyond politics and security. This paper seeks to examine the mobilization of environmental civil society organizations (CSOs) in response to the war and its implications for Ukraine's aspirations towards EU accession. As the conflict unfolds, they are not only addressing environmental issues but are also grappling with concerns about democratic governance. This multifaceted engagement underscores the pivotal role of environmental CSOs in shaping not only environmental policies but also contributing to broader discussions on democratic values and governance. Using a qualitative approach, drawing upon a combination of primary and secondary literature review and interviews with key stakeholders, the paper will analyze the impact of the war in Ukraine on the mobilization of environmental CSOs, examine their role in shaping Ukraine's environmental policies amidst the conflict, and assess the influence of environmental activism on Ukraine's progress towards democratisation and European Union accession. While existing literature explores the role of civil society in conflict zones and the impact of war on state-building, there is a notable gap in understanding the specific dynamics of environmental CSOs in war-affected regions and their contribution to democratisation and broader geopolitical objectives such as EU accession. This paper aims to bridge this gap by contextualizing the Ukrainian case within the literature on civil society mobilization, environmental activism, and EU conditionality.