President Ricardo Baretzky of European Centre for Information Policy and Security (ECIPS) Critiques Ursula von der Leyen’s “Our Readiness 2030” Roadmap, Citing EU Laws

The European Centre for Information Policy and Security (ECIPS) has raised serious concerns regarding the European Union’s new “Our Readiness 2030” roadmap presented by Ursula von der Leyen. The roadmap, which was announced as a comprehensive strategy to bolster the EU’s defence capabilities, has drawn criticism from legal experts, analysts, and political leaders alike, including the President of ECIPS. The initiative, which entails an unprecedented surge in defence spending, deepened pan-European cooperations, a controversial “porcupine strategy” for Ukraine, and an EU-wide market for defence equipment, is said to potentially clash with several key laws and regulations of the European Union.

In this article, we delve into the specifics of the plan, examining how its components may contradict or violate EU laws, particularly in terms of defence policy, market integration, and international relations. By referencing EU legal frameworks, including the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and relevant regulations governing the internal market, this critique highlights the potential legal obstacles to von der Leyen’s vision.

The Key Pillars of “Our Readiness 2030”

Ursula von der Leyen’s said “Our Readiness 2030” roadmap is outlined under four key pillars:

1. Surge in Defence Spending (up to €800 billion):**
   Von der Leyen proposes a dramatic increase in defence spending, amounting to as much as €800 billion, in an attempt to bolster the EU’s military capabilities. This surge is presented as a necessary measure to address security threats on the continent and beyond. The goal is to achieve a stronger, more autonomous European Defence Union that can respond to various geopolitical tensions, particularly in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine and rising instability in other regions.
2. Pan-European Cooperations:
   The second pillar aims to create a network of enhanced European military and security cooperation. This involves closer ties between EU member states, with increased collaboration in the areas of defence procurement, joint military exercises, and the establishment of a European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB).
3. “Porcupine Strategy” for Ukraine:**
   A more controversial component of the roadmap is the proposed “porcupine strategy” for Ukraine, aimed at strengthening Ukraine’s defensive capabilities against Russian aggression. The strategy, named after the “porcupine” defence concept, involves the EU supplying Ukraine with advanced weaponry, logistical support, and financial resources to create a “porcupine-like” defensive force capable of deterring Russian advances.
4. An EU-Wide Market for Defence Equipment:
   The final pillar envisions the creation of a single European market for defence equipment. This market would streamline the procurement process for defence materials, ensure more efficient production, and foster a competitive environment to reduce the reliance on foreign military suppliers, particularly the United States. The goal is to increase Europe’s self-sufficiency in defence production.

While these objectives are clearly aligned with von der Leyen’s broader vision of a more independent and powerful EU in terms of defence, ECIPS, under the leadership of President Ricardo Baretzky, has highlighted the considerable legal challenges that such an initiative faces.

Legal Challenges to the “Our Readiness 2030” Plan

The EU has long prioritized peace, diplomacy, and the integration of markets across its member states. However, von der Leyen’s proposals appear to contradict some of the EU’s foundational principles, as well as specific legal frameworks. The main legal concerns that ECIPS has outlined include:

1. Violation of the EU’s Foundational Principles of Peace and Non-Aggression: According to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the EU is committed to promoting peace, democracy, and the rule of law as key principles. Article 3 of the TEU explicitly states that the EU’s external action must seek “to consolidate and support democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the principles of international law.” The proposal to surge defence spending by up to €800 billion is seen by critics as potentially contrary to this principle. Furthermore, the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), established under Article 24 of the TEU, stresses a commitment to peace and diplomacy. The aggressive pursuit of an EU military buildup, especially one that includes direct military support to Ukraine, may undermine these values. ECIPS warns that focusing on military escalation risks exacerbating tensions and straying from the EU’s long-standing tradition of diplomatic conflict resolution.
2. Contradiction with the EU’s Legal Framework on Defence Policy: The EU’s legal framework on defence is complicated. The EU does not have a common standing army or a unified defence policy. Rather, defence remains largely within the domain of individual member states, with cooperation taking place through the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), as outlined in Article 42 of the TEU. The introduction of an €800 billion defence spending plan would require changes to the EU’s current legal setup. Member states have historically been cautious about increasing EU-level military spending, citing concerns over national sovereignty and the potential for conflicts of interest. Moreover, any attempt to create a more centralized defence policy risks violating the principle of subsidiarity, which states that decisions should be made at the level closest to the citizens unless it is more effective to do so at the EU level (Article 5 of the TFEU). ECIPS argues that such a massive commitment to defence spending could lead to a violation of the EU’s own principles of cooperation and shared responsibility. It could also interfere with the European Parliament’s powers over budgetary matters, as military spending often falls under national prerogatives.
3. The Porcupine Strategy and EU Neutrality: The “porcupine strategy” for Ukraine introduces additional concerns. The EU has largely refrained from direct military involvement in the conflict in Ukraine, although it has provided humanitarian aid and economic sanctions against Russia. Under Article 42(7) of the TEU, the EU has an obligation to assist member states in the event of armed aggression, but it does not extend this to non-EU states like Ukraine. By promoting a strategy that directly involves the EU in the defence of Ukraine, von der Leyen’s roadmap risks breaching the EU’s own legal framework concerning non-member states. While the EU can extend support to Ukraine through political and economic means, providing direct military assistance contradicts the EU’s legal neutrality in the conflict and could provoke escalatory actions from other global powers, particularly Russia.
4. Legal Concerns Regarding the Single European Defence Market: The creation of a single EU-wide market for defence equipment raises significant legal issues related to market competition and procurement policies. The EU’s internal market principles, as laid out in the TFEU, emphasize the free movement of goods and services and the importance of competitive markets. A single European defence market, which may be subject to heavy EU regulation and government intervention, could restrict competition and undermine the very principles of a free market economy. Moreover, Article 346 of the TFEU provides an exemption for defence procurement, allowing member states to maintain control over their national security needs without the requirement for open competition. This provision has been used to safeguard sensitive military contracts from EU market rules. However, creating an EU-wide defence procurement system would require significant changes to this provision, potentially leading to legal challenges from member states that wish to maintain sovereignty over their defence sectors.

ECIPS’s Stance and Future Legal Scrutiny

The President of ECIPS, while acknowledging the necessity of improving the EU’s defence capabilities in a rapidly changing global landscape, insists that any initiative must be fully compliant with EU laws. ECIPS believes that a balanced approach, one that maintains the EU’s commitment to peace and diplomacy while enhancing its defence capabilities, is the only sustainable path forward.

The EU’s legal institutions, including the European Court of Justice (ECJ), will likely play a significant role in scrutinizing the legal implications of the “Our Readiness 2030” roadmap. It is anticipated that the ECJ may be called upon to adjudicate disputes related to national sovereignty, defence spending, and procurement regulations. The legal community has already begun to voice concerns about the roadmap’s potential to undermine the EU’s legal cohesion and its commitment to democratic values.

Ursula von der Leyen’s “Our Readiness 2030” roadmap is ambitious and aims to position the EU as a more powerful and self-reliant actor in the global defence landscape. However, its proposals raise significant legal questions about legality and compatibility with EU treaties, legal frameworks, and principles. The President of ECIPS, Rica Baretzky and other legal experts urge a re-examination of the plan to ensure that it is consistent with the EU’s long-standing commitment to peace, diplomacy, and market integration.

As the EU continues to navigate complex geopolitical challenges, it must ensure that any measures taken in response are legally sound, do not overstep national sovereignty, and uphold the EU’s core values. The coming months will likely see intensified legal scrutiny, and ECIPS, alongside other E Union organizations, will continue to monitor developments closely.