What would the EU do if an EU member declared war on another EU member?Is there anything in UN charter or laws prohibiting a country to seek the destruction of another country?Why and since when did Russia stop integrating itself into the Western community?Resolving military conflicts between NATO member statesIs there a precedent for a country attacking another and later admitting their casus belli was false?Is there a correlation between size of member state and support for EU membership?Can there be a UN resolution to remove a country from the UN Security Council?Is there a strong legal guarantee that the U.S. can give to another country that it won't attack them?Are the laws governing Antarctica legally binding?
JPEG with transparent background
Why would gloves be necessary for handling flobberworms?
How to evaluate theta function's derivative numerically?
What happens if a country signs mutual defense treaties with several countries who later go to war with each other?
Why do we worry about overfitting even if "all models are wrong"?
Implement batch option --yes in bash script
Is it usual for a US president to make specific comments about a UK Prime Minister's suitability during a general election?
Does 3>&1 imply 4>&3 5>&3 etc.?
Was the Berlin Wall Breached Based upon an Erroneous Declaration?
Why don't the crew of Moya know the location of their homeworlds?
What are the reasons OR industry projects fail?
Interpret numbers very literally
First attempt: Python Rock Paper Scissors
What is David Chalmers' Naturalistic dualism?
Ethics questions concerning a referee assignment
Listing files that end in ".txt" from directories with the word "SALARIO" in its name without using pipes
Drying clothes: windy but cold outside vs warm(ish) inside?
How to mine a star?
Max of the reversed of two numbers
1 kHz clock over long wire
Why using a recurrent neural network over a feedforward neural network for sequence prediction?
What does the KL being symmetric tell us about the distributions?
Why is Carbon Dioxide a Greenhouse Gas whereas Ammonia is not?
Single word for delaying an unpleasant task
What would the EU do if an EU member declared war on another EU member?
Is there anything in UN charter or laws prohibiting a country to seek the destruction of another country?Why and since when did Russia stop integrating itself into the Western community?Resolving military conflicts between NATO member statesIs there a precedent for a country attacking another and later admitting their casus belli was false?Is there a correlation between size of member state and support for EU membership?Can there be a UN resolution to remove a country from the UN Security Council?Is there a strong legal guarantee that the U.S. can give to another country that it won't attack them?Are the laws governing Antarctica legally binding?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
What would the EU do if an EU member declared war on another EU member? I am wondering what would happen if a country like France attacked a country like Cyprus, what would the EU do in that situation? Is there a sort of mechanism in place that would guide the EU in its decision?
european-union international-law international europe
asked Jul 12 at 15:45
yocuyocu
2227 bronze badges
add a comment
|
What would the EU do if an EU member declared war on another EU member? I am wondering what would happen if a country like France attacked a country like Cyprus, what would the EU do in that situation? Is there a sort of mechanism in place that would guide the EU in its decision?
european-union international-law international europe
asked Jul 12 at 15:45
yocuyocu
2227 bronze badges
6
Probably nobody knows. In love and war everything is possible.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:23
3
Aren't they all NATO members as well? That would also be a factor.
– vsz
Jul 13 at 7:56
4
That question has -- until that became non-discussable for other reasons -- for a long, long time been the strongest argument against Turkey's efforts to join the EU. Seeing how they occupy an EU member state (the one mentioned in the question, incidentially) since 45 or so years.
– Damon
Jul 13 at 12:52
5
@vsz All EU members are not NATO members (for example Finland is not, although the debate about joining NATO has been going on for a long time)
– vurp0
Jul 13 at 14:11
@vsz Not all of them are. In particular, countries pursuing a policy of neutrality including Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria did not join NATO (and generally avoid military alliances).
– Relaxed
Aug 14 at 20:35
add a comment
|
What would the EU do if an EU member declared war on another EU member? I am wondering what would happen if a country like France attacked a country like Cyprus, what would the EU do in that situation? Is there a sort of mechanism in place that would guide the EU in its decision?
european-union international-law international europe
asked Jul 12 at 15:45
yocuyocu
2227 bronze badges
What would the EU do if an EU member declared war on another EU member? I am wondering what would happen if a country like France attacked a country like Cyprus, what would the EU do in that situation? Is there a sort of mechanism in place that would guide the EU in its decision?
european-union international-law international europe
european-union international-law international europe
asked Jul 12 at 15:45
yocuyocu
2227 bronze badges
asked Jul 12 at 15:45
yocuyocu
2227 bronze badges
asked Jul 12 at 15:45
yocuyocu
2227 bronze badges
asked Jul 12 at 15:45
yocuyocu
2227 bronze badges
asked Jul 12 at 15:45
yocuyocu
2227 bronze badges
2227 bronze badges
6
Probably nobody knows. In love and war everything is possible.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:23
3
Aren't they all NATO members as well? That would also be a factor.
– vsz
Jul 13 at 7:56
4
That question has -- until that became non-discussable for other reasons -- for a long, long time been the strongest argument against Turkey's efforts to join the EU. Seeing how they occupy an EU member state (the one mentioned in the question, incidentially) since 45 or so years.
– Damon
Jul 13 at 12:52
5
@vsz All EU members are not NATO members (for example Finland is not, although the debate about joining NATO has been going on for a long time)
– vurp0
Jul 13 at 14:11
@vsz Not all of them are. In particular, countries pursuing a policy of neutrality including Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria did not join NATO (and generally avoid military alliances).
– Relaxed
Aug 14 at 20:35
add a comment
|
6
Probably nobody knows. In love and war everything is possible.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:23
3
Aren't they all NATO members as well? That would also be a factor.
– vsz
Jul 13 at 7:56
4
That question has -- until that became non-discussable for other reasons -- for a long, long time been the strongest argument against Turkey's efforts to join the EU. Seeing how they occupy an EU member state (the one mentioned in the question, incidentially) since 45 or so years.
– Damon
Jul 13 at 12:52
5
@vsz All EU members are not NATO members (for example Finland is not, although the debate about joining NATO has been going on for a long time)
– vurp0
Jul 13 at 14:11
@vsz Not all of them are. In particular, countries pursuing a policy of neutrality including Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria did not join NATO (and generally avoid military alliances).
– Relaxed
Aug 14 at 20:35
6
6
Probably nobody knows. In love and war everything is possible.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:23
Probably nobody knows. In love and war everything is possible.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:23
3
3
Aren't they all NATO members as well? That would also be a factor.
– vsz
Jul 13 at 7:56
Aren't they all NATO members as well? That would also be a factor.
– vsz
Jul 13 at 7:56
4
4
That question has -- until that became non-discussable for other reasons -- for a long, long time been the strongest argument against Turkey's efforts to join the EU. Seeing how they occupy an EU member state (the one mentioned in the question, incidentially) since 45 or so years.
– Damon
Jul 13 at 12:52
That question has -- until that became non-discussable for other reasons -- for a long, long time been the strongest argument against Turkey's efforts to join the EU. Seeing how they occupy an EU member state (the one mentioned in the question, incidentially) since 45 or so years.
– Damon
Jul 13 at 12:52
5
5
@vsz All EU members are not NATO members (for example Finland is not, although the debate about joining NATO has been going on for a long time)
– vurp0
Jul 13 at 14:11
@vsz All EU members are not NATO members (for example Finland is not, although the debate about joining NATO has been going on for a long time)
– vurp0
Jul 13 at 14:11
@vsz Not all of them are. In particular, countries pursuing a policy of neutrality including Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria did not join NATO (and generally avoid military alliances).
– Relaxed
Aug 14 at 20:35
@vsz Not all of them are. In particular, countries pursuing a policy of neutrality including Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria did not join NATO (and generally avoid military alliances).
– Relaxed
Aug 14 at 20:35
add a comment
|
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
According to the provisions in the Treaty on European Union, the EU itself wouldn't be able to do much directly, however it could delegate a conflict resolution task to some number of member states. Further, all EU members would be obligated to provide aid to the attacked member state.
Title V, Chapter 2, Section 2 of the Treaty on European Union states the following:
- The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.
...
- The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union's values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.
...
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
answered Jul 12 at 17:35
GiterGiter
4,5952 gold badges12 silver badges26 bronze badges
2
Further, all EU members would be obligated to provide aid to the attacked member state- i guess that technically includes the aggressor?
– hanshenrik
Jul 13 at 13:14
@hanshenrik - One would imagine their "aid" would come in the form of efforts to liberate the attacked state from its politicians who put it in the position to get attacked by the aggresssor.
– T.E.D.
Jul 13 at 16:01
1
@hanshenrik "say no more fam, I'm already at the location of the problem."
– Stumbler
Jul 13 at 23:05
add a comment
|
I would expect the EU to work very hard to try to mediate and resolve any dispute between members long before it got to the point where one member was to declare war on another.
If a large and influential nation like France was to attack a smaller nation like Cyprus 'out of the blue', it would probably be an existential threat to the EU itself, as it would be a huge blow to the spirit of cooperation and trust that the EU is founded on. Other members would be forced to either take sides; reprimand or punish France somehow (which would be difficult and cause a lot of internal tension); or otherwise turn a blind eye as France 'has a go' at Cyprus. None of those options would be very appealing or positive for EU cohesion.
answered Jul 12 at 16:05
Time4TeaTime4Tea
2,6972 gold badges19 silver badges38 bronze badges
add a comment
|
According to the treaties, they would have to defend both members. So they would fight for one member on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and for the other member on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Sunday could be used to plan the schedule for the next week.
Seriously, two EU members fighting a war is quite incomprehensible for logistical reasons, as well as political ones. The EU members have already integrated their armed forces to a degree that only small expeditionary detachments could fight independently. Anything larger than that would run into the problems that some specialized capability is only provided by a few member nations.
Follow-Up:
NATO has nine rapid deployable corps headquarters in Europe: ARRC, EUROCORPS, Northeast, Italy, Turkey, German-Netherlands, Spain, France, Greece. Turkey isn't EU, and the EU has some members who are not NATO, but the big ones are.
Not sure about the Spain and France (and Turkey) headquarters, but the rest are multinational.
France and the UK have their own AWACS squadron, the rest of the EU either participates in the NATO pool or runs much smaller aircraft like the Embraer R-99, Gulfstream 550, or Saab 340.
answered Jul 12 at 17:24
o.m.o.m.
23.1k3 gold badges58 silver badges82 bronze badges
5
The first paragraph of this answer is not really helpful and I wonder if the second paragraph is not overestimating the level of integration of the national armies within the EU. I think it's more a vertical integration than a horizontal one.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:20
1
@Trilarion, quite a lot of EM members are also NATO members and the smaller NATO members are quite integrated. The joint AWACS fleet is but one example.
– o.m.
Jul 13 at 2:34
5
@Trilarion I think the first paragraph is extremely helpful. Cutting out the humor is not helpful.
– Aaron
Jul 13 at 3:52
3
The second paragraph is plain wrong.
– Alan Dev
Jul 13 at 16:35
2
The second paragraph is at least plainly wrong for my EU country, maybe you need to clarify which countries you you have experience with.
– pipe
Jul 13 at 21:28
|
show 23 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42926%2fwhat-would-the-eu-do-if-an-eu-member-declared-war-on-another-eu-member%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
According to the provisions in the Treaty on European Union, the EU itself wouldn't be able to do much directly, however it could delegate a conflict resolution task to some number of member states. Further, all EU members would be obligated to provide aid to the attacked member state.
Title V, Chapter 2, Section 2 of the Treaty on European Union states the following:
- The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.
...
- The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union's values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.
...
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
answered Jul 12 at 17:35
GiterGiter
4,5952 gold badges12 silver badges26 bronze badges
2
Further, all EU members would be obligated to provide aid to the attacked member state- i guess that technically includes the aggressor?
– hanshenrik
Jul 13 at 13:14
@hanshenrik - One would imagine their "aid" would come in the form of efforts to liberate the attacked state from its politicians who put it in the position to get attacked by the aggresssor.
– T.E.D.
Jul 13 at 16:01
1
@hanshenrik "say no more fam, I'm already at the location of the problem."
– Stumbler
Jul 13 at 23:05
add a comment
|
According to the provisions in the Treaty on European Union, the EU itself wouldn't be able to do much directly, however it could delegate a conflict resolution task to some number of member states. Further, all EU members would be obligated to provide aid to the attacked member state.
Title V, Chapter 2, Section 2 of the Treaty on European Union states the following:
- The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.
...
- The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union's values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.
...
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
answered Jul 12 at 17:35
GiterGiter
4,5952 gold badges12 silver badges26 bronze badges
2
Further, all EU members would be obligated to provide aid to the attacked member state- i guess that technically includes the aggressor?
– hanshenrik
Jul 13 at 13:14
@hanshenrik - One would imagine their "aid" would come in the form of efforts to liberate the attacked state from its politicians who put it in the position to get attacked by the aggresssor.
– T.E.D.
Jul 13 at 16:01
1
@hanshenrik "say no more fam, I'm already at the location of the problem."
– Stumbler
Jul 13 at 23:05
add a comment
|
According to the provisions in the Treaty on European Union, the EU itself wouldn't be able to do much directly, however it could delegate a conflict resolution task to some number of member states. Further, all EU members would be obligated to provide aid to the attacked member state.
Title V, Chapter 2, Section 2 of the Treaty on European Union states the following:
- The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.
...
- The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union's values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.
...
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
answered Jul 12 at 17:35
GiterGiter
4,5952 gold badges12 silver badges26 bronze badges
According to the provisions in the Treaty on European Union, the EU itself wouldn't be able to do much directly, however it could delegate a conflict resolution task to some number of member states. Further, all EU members would be obligated to provide aid to the attacked member state.
Title V, Chapter 2, Section 2 of the Treaty on European Union states the following:
- The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.
...
- The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union's values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.
...
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
answered Jul 12 at 17:35
GiterGiter
4,5952 gold badges12 silver badges26 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:35
GiterGiter
4,5952 gold badges12 silver badges26 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:35
GiterGiter
4,5952 gold badges12 silver badges26 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:35
GiterGiter
4,5952 gold badges12 silver badges26 bronze badges
4,5952 gold badges12 silver badges26 bronze badges
2
Further, all EU members would be obligated to provide aid to the attacked member state- i guess that technically includes the aggressor?
– hanshenrik
Jul 13 at 13:14
@hanshenrik - One would imagine their "aid" would come in the form of efforts to liberate the attacked state from its politicians who put it in the position to get attacked by the aggresssor.
– T.E.D.
Jul 13 at 16:01
1
@hanshenrik "say no more fam, I'm already at the location of the problem."
– Stumbler
Jul 13 at 23:05
add a comment
|
2
Further, all EU members would be obligated to provide aid to the attacked member state- i guess that technically includes the aggressor?
– hanshenrik
Jul 13 at 13:14
@hanshenrik - One would imagine their "aid" would come in the form of efforts to liberate the attacked state from its politicians who put it in the position to get attacked by the aggresssor.
– T.E.D.
Jul 13 at 16:01
1
@hanshenrik "say no more fam, I'm already at the location of the problem."
– Stumbler
Jul 13 at 23:05
2
2
Further, all EU members would be obligated to provide aid to the attacked member state - i guess that technically includes the aggressor?– hanshenrik
Jul 13 at 13:14
Further, all EU members would be obligated to provide aid to the attacked member state - i guess that technically includes the aggressor?– hanshenrik
Jul 13 at 13:14
@hanshenrik - One would imagine their "aid" would come in the form of efforts to liberate the attacked state from its politicians who put it in the position to get attacked by the aggresssor.
– T.E.D.
Jul 13 at 16:01
@hanshenrik - One would imagine their "aid" would come in the form of efforts to liberate the attacked state from its politicians who put it in the position to get attacked by the aggresssor.
– T.E.D.
Jul 13 at 16:01
1
1
@hanshenrik "say no more fam, I'm already at the location of the problem."
– Stumbler
Jul 13 at 23:05
@hanshenrik "say no more fam, I'm already at the location of the problem."
– Stumbler
Jul 13 at 23:05
add a comment
|
I would expect the EU to work very hard to try to mediate and resolve any dispute between members long before it got to the point where one member was to declare war on another.
If a large and influential nation like France was to attack a smaller nation like Cyprus 'out of the blue', it would probably be an existential threat to the EU itself, as it would be a huge blow to the spirit of cooperation and trust that the EU is founded on. Other members would be forced to either take sides; reprimand or punish France somehow (which would be difficult and cause a lot of internal tension); or otherwise turn a blind eye as France 'has a go' at Cyprus. None of those options would be very appealing or positive for EU cohesion.
answered Jul 12 at 16:05
Time4TeaTime4Tea
2,6972 gold badges19 silver badges38 bronze badges
add a comment
|
I would expect the EU to work very hard to try to mediate and resolve any dispute between members long before it got to the point where one member was to declare war on another.
If a large and influential nation like France was to attack a smaller nation like Cyprus 'out of the blue', it would probably be an existential threat to the EU itself, as it would be a huge blow to the spirit of cooperation and trust that the EU is founded on. Other members would be forced to either take sides; reprimand or punish France somehow (which would be difficult and cause a lot of internal tension); or otherwise turn a blind eye as France 'has a go' at Cyprus. None of those options would be very appealing or positive for EU cohesion.
answered Jul 12 at 16:05
Time4TeaTime4Tea
2,6972 gold badges19 silver badges38 bronze badges
add a comment
|
I would expect the EU to work very hard to try to mediate and resolve any dispute between members long before it got to the point where one member was to declare war on another.
If a large and influential nation like France was to attack a smaller nation like Cyprus 'out of the blue', it would probably be an existential threat to the EU itself, as it would be a huge blow to the spirit of cooperation and trust that the EU is founded on. Other members would be forced to either take sides; reprimand or punish France somehow (which would be difficult and cause a lot of internal tension); or otherwise turn a blind eye as France 'has a go' at Cyprus. None of those options would be very appealing or positive for EU cohesion.
answered Jul 12 at 16:05
Time4TeaTime4Tea
2,6972 gold badges19 silver badges38 bronze badges
I would expect the EU to work very hard to try to mediate and resolve any dispute between members long before it got to the point where one member was to declare war on another.
If a large and influential nation like France was to attack a smaller nation like Cyprus 'out of the blue', it would probably be an existential threat to the EU itself, as it would be a huge blow to the spirit of cooperation and trust that the EU is founded on. Other members would be forced to either take sides; reprimand or punish France somehow (which would be difficult and cause a lot of internal tension); or otherwise turn a blind eye as France 'has a go' at Cyprus. None of those options would be very appealing or positive for EU cohesion.
answered Jul 12 at 16:05
Time4TeaTime4Tea
2,6972 gold badges19 silver badges38 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 16:05
Time4TeaTime4Tea
2,6972 gold badges19 silver badges38 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 16:05
Time4TeaTime4Tea
2,6972 gold badges19 silver badges38 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 16:05
Time4TeaTime4Tea
2,6972 gold badges19 silver badges38 bronze badges
2,6972 gold badges19 silver badges38 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
According to the treaties, they would have to defend both members. So they would fight for one member on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and for the other member on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Sunday could be used to plan the schedule for the next week.
Seriously, two EU members fighting a war is quite incomprehensible for logistical reasons, as well as political ones. The EU members have already integrated their armed forces to a degree that only small expeditionary detachments could fight independently. Anything larger than that would run into the problems that some specialized capability is only provided by a few member nations.
Follow-Up:
NATO has nine rapid deployable corps headquarters in Europe: ARRC, EUROCORPS, Northeast, Italy, Turkey, German-Netherlands, Spain, France, Greece. Turkey isn't EU, and the EU has some members who are not NATO, but the big ones are.
Not sure about the Spain and France (and Turkey) headquarters, but the rest are multinational.
France and the UK have their own AWACS squadron, the rest of the EU either participates in the NATO pool or runs much smaller aircraft like the Embraer R-99, Gulfstream 550, or Saab 340.
answered Jul 12 at 17:24
o.m.o.m.
23.1k3 gold badges58 silver badges82 bronze badges
5
The first paragraph of this answer is not really helpful and I wonder if the second paragraph is not overestimating the level of integration of the national armies within the EU. I think it's more a vertical integration than a horizontal one.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:20
1
@Trilarion, quite a lot of EM members are also NATO members and the smaller NATO members are quite integrated. The joint AWACS fleet is but one example.
– o.m.
Jul 13 at 2:34
5
@Trilarion I think the first paragraph is extremely helpful. Cutting out the humor is not helpful.
– Aaron
Jul 13 at 3:52
3
The second paragraph is plain wrong.
– Alan Dev
Jul 13 at 16:35
2
The second paragraph is at least plainly wrong for my EU country, maybe you need to clarify which countries you you have experience with.
– pipe
Jul 13 at 21:28
|
show 23 more comments
According to the treaties, they would have to defend both members. So they would fight for one member on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and for the other member on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Sunday could be used to plan the schedule for the next week.
Seriously, two EU members fighting a war is quite incomprehensible for logistical reasons, as well as political ones. The EU members have already integrated their armed forces to a degree that only small expeditionary detachments could fight independently. Anything larger than that would run into the problems that some specialized capability is only provided by a few member nations.
Follow-Up:
NATO has nine rapid deployable corps headquarters in Europe: ARRC, EUROCORPS, Northeast, Italy, Turkey, German-Netherlands, Spain, France, Greece. Turkey isn't EU, and the EU has some members who are not NATO, but the big ones are.
Not sure about the Spain and France (and Turkey) headquarters, but the rest are multinational.
France and the UK have their own AWACS squadron, the rest of the EU either participates in the NATO pool or runs much smaller aircraft like the Embraer R-99, Gulfstream 550, or Saab 340.
answered Jul 12 at 17:24
o.m.o.m.
23.1k3 gold badges58 silver badges82 bronze badges
5
The first paragraph of this answer is not really helpful and I wonder if the second paragraph is not overestimating the level of integration of the national armies within the EU. I think it's more a vertical integration than a horizontal one.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:20
1
@Trilarion, quite a lot of EM members are also NATO members and the smaller NATO members are quite integrated. The joint AWACS fleet is but one example.
– o.m.
Jul 13 at 2:34
5
@Trilarion I think the first paragraph is extremely helpful. Cutting out the humor is not helpful.
– Aaron
Jul 13 at 3:52
3
The second paragraph is plain wrong.
– Alan Dev
Jul 13 at 16:35
2
The second paragraph is at least plainly wrong for my EU country, maybe you need to clarify which countries you you have experience with.
– pipe
Jul 13 at 21:28
|
show 23 more comments
According to the treaties, they would have to defend both members. So they would fight for one member on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and for the other member on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Sunday could be used to plan the schedule for the next week.
Seriously, two EU members fighting a war is quite incomprehensible for logistical reasons, as well as political ones. The EU members have already integrated their armed forces to a degree that only small expeditionary detachments could fight independently. Anything larger than that would run into the problems that some specialized capability is only provided by a few member nations.
Follow-Up:
NATO has nine rapid deployable corps headquarters in Europe: ARRC, EUROCORPS, Northeast, Italy, Turkey, German-Netherlands, Spain, France, Greece. Turkey isn't EU, and the EU has some members who are not NATO, but the big ones are.
Not sure about the Spain and France (and Turkey) headquarters, but the rest are multinational.
France and the UK have their own AWACS squadron, the rest of the EU either participates in the NATO pool or runs much smaller aircraft like the Embraer R-99, Gulfstream 550, or Saab 340.
answered Jul 12 at 17:24
o.m.o.m.
23.1k3 gold badges58 silver badges82 bronze badges
According to the treaties, they would have to defend both members. So they would fight for one member on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and for the other member on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Sunday could be used to plan the schedule for the next week.
Seriously, two EU members fighting a war is quite incomprehensible for logistical reasons, as well as political ones. The EU members have already integrated their armed forces to a degree that only small expeditionary detachments could fight independently. Anything larger than that would run into the problems that some specialized capability is only provided by a few member nations.
Follow-Up:
NATO has nine rapid deployable corps headquarters in Europe: ARRC, EUROCORPS, Northeast, Italy, Turkey, German-Netherlands, Spain, France, Greece. Turkey isn't EU, and the EU has some members who are not NATO, but the big ones are.
Not sure about the Spain and France (and Turkey) headquarters, but the rest are multinational.
France and the UK have their own AWACS squadron, the rest of the EU either participates in the NATO pool or runs much smaller aircraft like the Embraer R-99, Gulfstream 550, or Saab 340.
answered Jul 12 at 17:24
o.m.o.m.
23.1k3 gold badges58 silver badges82 bronze badges
edited Jul 14 at 4:43
answered Jul 12 at 17:24
o.m.o.m.
23.1k3 gold badges58 silver badges82 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:24
o.m.o.m.
23.1k3 gold badges58 silver badges82 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:24
o.m.o.m.
23.1k3 gold badges58 silver badges82 bronze badges
23.1k3 gold badges58 silver badges82 bronze badges
5
The first paragraph of this answer is not really helpful and I wonder if the second paragraph is not overestimating the level of integration of the national armies within the EU. I think it's more a vertical integration than a horizontal one.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:20
1
@Trilarion, quite a lot of EM members are also NATO members and the smaller NATO members are quite integrated. The joint AWACS fleet is but one example.
– o.m.
Jul 13 at 2:34
5
@Trilarion I think the first paragraph is extremely helpful. Cutting out the humor is not helpful.
– Aaron
Jul 13 at 3:52
3
The second paragraph is plain wrong.
– Alan Dev
Jul 13 at 16:35
2
The second paragraph is at least plainly wrong for my EU country, maybe you need to clarify which countries you you have experience with.
– pipe
Jul 13 at 21:28
|
show 23 more comments
5
The first paragraph of this answer is not really helpful and I wonder if the second paragraph is not overestimating the level of integration of the national armies within the EU. I think it's more a vertical integration than a horizontal one.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:20
1
@Trilarion, quite a lot of EM members are also NATO members and the smaller NATO members are quite integrated. The joint AWACS fleet is but one example.
– o.m.
Jul 13 at 2:34
5
@Trilarion I think the first paragraph is extremely helpful. Cutting out the humor is not helpful.
– Aaron
Jul 13 at 3:52
3
The second paragraph is plain wrong.
– Alan Dev
Jul 13 at 16:35
2
The second paragraph is at least plainly wrong for my EU country, maybe you need to clarify which countries you you have experience with.
– pipe
Jul 13 at 21:28
5
5
The first paragraph of this answer is not really helpful and I wonder if the second paragraph is not overestimating the level of integration of the national armies within the EU. I think it's more a vertical integration than a horizontal one.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:20
The first paragraph of this answer is not really helpful and I wonder if the second paragraph is not overestimating the level of integration of the national armies within the EU. I think it's more a vertical integration than a horizontal one.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:20
1
1
@Trilarion, quite a lot of EM members are also NATO members and the smaller NATO members are quite integrated. The joint AWACS fleet is but one example.
– o.m.
Jul 13 at 2:34
@Trilarion, quite a lot of EM members are also NATO members and the smaller NATO members are quite integrated. The joint AWACS fleet is but one example.
– o.m.
Jul 13 at 2:34
5
5
@Trilarion I think the first paragraph is extremely helpful. Cutting out the humor is not helpful.
– Aaron
Jul 13 at 3:52
@Trilarion I think the first paragraph is extremely helpful. Cutting out the humor is not helpful.
– Aaron
Jul 13 at 3:52
3
3
The second paragraph is plain wrong.
– Alan Dev
Jul 13 at 16:35
The second paragraph is plain wrong.
– Alan Dev
Jul 13 at 16:35
2
2
The second paragraph is at least plainly wrong for my EU country, maybe you need to clarify which countries you you have experience with.
– pipe
Jul 13 at 21:28
The second paragraph is at least plainly wrong for my EU country, maybe you need to clarify which countries you you have experience with.
– pipe
Jul 13 at 21:28
|
show 23 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42926%2fwhat-would-the-eu-do-if-an-eu-member-declared-war-on-another-eu-member%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
Probably nobody knows. In love and war everything is possible.
– Trilarion
Jul 12 at 18:23
3
Aren't they all NATO members as well? That would also be a factor.
– vsz
Jul 13 at 7:56
4
That question has -- until that became non-discussable for other reasons -- for a long, long time been the strongest argument against Turkey's efforts to join the EU. Seeing how they occupy an EU member state (the one mentioned in the question, incidentially) since 45 or so years.
– Damon
Jul 13 at 12:52
5
@vsz All EU members are not NATO members (for example Finland is not, although the debate about joining NATO has been going on for a long time)
– vurp0
Jul 13 at 14:11
@vsz Not all of them are. In particular, countries pursuing a policy of neutrality including Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria did not join NATO (and generally avoid military alliances).
– Relaxed
Aug 14 at 20:35