This paper analyzes the contribution of the CSDP operations to the peace building tasks of the peace operations of the global system, and examines the different levels of participation of EU Member States. Section one presents the scenario and considers the growth and expansion of practice of peace operations in the last twenty years. Section two reviews the main attributes of the CSDP operations. Section three explores the contribution of the old and new Member States to CSDP by examining the number of operations these countries participated in. The concluding section summarizes the research findings, and points to the current challenges faced by the EU’s peace missions.

The Lisbon Treaty which entered into force in 2009 was a major event in the ongoing evolution of the European Union (EU) project. However, despite important changes, energy policy formation remains muddled and continues to be area of contest between the EU and its Member States. This in turn means that trade dynamics with important energy providers such as Australia become affected by the internal dynamics concerning energy policy within the EU. Complicating this further is the advancement of climate change mitigation as a major policy issue also has wide ranging implications.

The article argues that despite the Lisbon Treaty providing a legal basis for formulating energy policy through the application of shared competences, it does not exercise any substantive direct influence on national or trade-related issues surrounding energy. Instead of the EU exercising relative control, trade in energy resources is still conducted largely on a bilateral basis with EU Member States continuing to determine the primary aspects of their energy policy. As such, the greatest impact the EU has on Member State-Australia’s energy trade is indirect, through binding policy initiatives originally negotiated by the Member States.

In order to examine the involvement of Asian interests in European Union politics, we develop a preliminary framework for studying the involvement of external interests in EU policy -making. Using data on the online consultations of the European Commission from 2001 till 2010, we aim at explaining both the level of engagement, the types of active actors and policy areas of involvement of different regions. We find that that external representation is partly but not fully accounted for by economic ties and possession of resources. Moreover, we find variation in which areas and by which actors different regions are represented suggesting that variation in national-sectoral structures between them affects differences in the character of representation between them.

The scope of the EU’s development agenda has undergone significant changes over the years and now, interalia, includes political objectives and sectoral priorities. In South Asia – a region long overlooked by the EU due to its marginal presence in global trade, internal bickering and varying political preferences – the EU is now focussed on improving infrastructure and social sectors, in addition to its longstanding liberal contributions of assistance in response to natural disasters in the region. The wider implications of donor coordination and EU development strategy are subject to much scrutiny and debate in South Asia, as this aid is inextricably linked to political preferences. This article evaluates the nature of the EU’s development programme in South Asia. It also points to the contradictions that exist within the EU’s larger ideological preferences and actions in its development agenda in South Asia.

The basic thesis of this paper is that Southeast Asia will be the crucible and the testing ground for a new Euro-American partnership. Both the United States and the European Union have vital interests in Southeast Asia. These interests certainly involve economics. They definitely concern security issues. And, for both the United States and the European Union, though for similar reasons differently nuanced, these interests aspire to the realm of ideals and idealism, of norms and normativism.