Mystery in civil–military relations! The unknown “European practice”
Based on:
Journal Article (2025)
Investigates the limitations of European Union (EU) documents in addressing the sociological aspects of civil–military coordination, highlighting the overlooked informal factors that shape interactions between civil and military sectors.
Brief by:
.jpeg)
EU policy documents have made notable progress in establishing institutional frameworks for civil–military cooperation, yet they continue to marginalize its sociological foundations. Everyday practices such as communication habits, informal coordination, and mutual perceptions remain largely absent from formal frameworks, despite being central to how cooperation actually works in practice. These dynamics cannot be engineered through institutional design alone. A recurring assumption within EU discourse is the existence of a cohesive “European practice,” often loosely linked to shared cultural heritage or identity. However, this concept is rarely defined or operationalized, leaving it analytically thin. Airspace Management stands as a partial exception, receiving comparatively sustained and concrete attention. Foundational studies by Aldis and Drent (2008) and Jayasundara-Smits (2016) already pointed to the shortcomings in both conceptualizing and implementing a distinctly European approach to civil–military relations. Building on this scholarship, this research integrates insights from Juncos (2020) and Friis (2020), who stress that effective coordination—rather than formal alignment alone—is essential for functional civil–military relations within the EU. It also draws on Adler-Nissen’s (2016) practice-oriented perspective, which highlights how informal norms, routines, and interactions shape governance beyond formal institutional settings. Taken together, this literature reveals a persistent reluctance—or inability—within the EU to fully acknowledge and engage with the sociological dimensions that underpin civil–military cooperation, despite their decisive role in shaping outcomes.
Key findings
EU civil–military cooperation remains constrained by the systematic neglect of informal sociological practices that ultimately determine how coordination functions in practice.
Evidence
Analysis of 253 EU documents revealed that topics like Hybrid Threats and European Defence Equipment address civil–military coordination in broad terms without delving into institutional or sociological perspectives. The concept of ''European practice'' remains vague and unsubstantiated, with foundational questions about civilian control left unanswered.
What it means
This lack of clarity undermines discourse on civil–military relations and cooperation within the EU, risking stagnation and perpetuating an incomplete framework.
EU documents emphasize structural and operational efficiency over sociological aspects in civil–military relations.
Evidence
Documents focus on logistical measures like co-location rather than fostering mutual understanding or joint cultural programs. Exceptions include the European Parliament's emphasis on professional civil-military education and the Military Erasmus Programme, but these remain in a ''call'' phase.
What it means
The institutional perspective neglects complex interpersonal dynamics crucial for sustainable cooperation, highlighting the need for a holistic approach addressing sociocultural factors.
The cyber domain offers potential for integrating sociological aspects into civil–military relations.
Evidence
The cyber domain's flexible operational framework could facilitate integration, as seen in the airspace domain. Shared vulnerabilities like cyberattacks create a space for fostering trust and enhancing mutual understanding between civil and military sectors.
What it means
Cyberspace presents an opportunity to bridge the gap between civil and military sectors, fostering more practical, adaptive, and sustainable cooperation.
The EU's civil–military model is rooted in European cultural heritage but lacks clear development and implementation details.
Evidence
The 2004 Regular Report on Turkey's progress noted improvements toward ''European standards,'' including advancements in civil liberties and civilian control of the military. However, the EU's model remains vague, reflecting diverse interpretations across member states.
What it means
The lack of ongoing dialogue and reflection on civil–military relations limits the evolution of these dynamics, preventing the development of more nuanced approaches.
Challenges in civil–military relations are interrelated, with obstacles in one area impeding progress in another.
Evidence
The EU's comprehensive range of operational resources faces structural and cultural obstacles, resulting in fragmented efforts. Military assets may not be available when needed, and a lack of civil–military standardization can have dramatic consequences.
What it means
Despite the EU's resources, achieving civil–military integration remains a significant challenge due to these obstacles.
Proposed action
One practical improvement would be to institutionalise permanent, mixed civil–military cyber teams that train, plan, and respond together on a daily basis across shared digital environments, turning coordination from an ad hoc crisis response into a habitual, trust-based culture grounded in common tools, language, and threat awareness.
Comments
You must log in to ask a question
Are you a researcher looking to make a real-world impact? Join Acume and transform your research into a practical summary.
Already have an account? Log in
Discover more
Sponsored links
Mystery in civil–military relations! The unknown “European practice”
Cite this brief: NEUMANN, ISABELLA. 'Mystery in civil–military relations! The unknown “European practice”'. Acume. https://www.acume.org/r/mystery-in-civil-military-relations-the-unknown-european-practice/
Brief created by: Dr ISABELLA NEUMANN | Year brief made: 2026
Original research:
- NEUMANN, I., (2025) ‘Mystery in civil–military relations! The unknown “European practice’ 34(2), pp. 1–20 https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2025.1234567. – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09662839.2025.1234567
Research brief:
Investigates the limitations of European Union (EU) documents in addressing the sociological aspects of civil–military coordination, highlighting the overlooked informal factors that shape interactions between civil and military sectors.
EU policy documents have made notable progress in establishing institutional frameworks for civil–military cooperation, yet they continue to marginalize its sociological foundations. Everyday practices such as communication habits, informal coordination, and mutual perceptions remain largely absent from formal frameworks, despite being central to how cooperation actually works in practice. These dynamics cannot be engineered through institutional design alone. A recurring assumption within EU discourse is the existence of a cohesive “European practice,” often loosely linked to shared cultural heritage or identity. However, this concept is rarely defined or operationalized, leaving it analytically thin. Airspace Management stands as a partial exception, receiving comparatively sustained and concrete attention. Foundational studies by Aldis and Drent (2008) and Jayasundara-Smits (2016) already pointed to the shortcomings in both conceptualizing and implementing a distinctly European approach to civil–military relations. Building on this scholarship, this research integrates insights from Juncos (2020) and Friis (2020), who stress that effective coordination—rather than formal alignment alone—is essential for functional civil–military relations within the EU. It also draws on Adler-Nissen’s (2016) practice-oriented perspective, which highlights how informal norms, routines, and interactions shape governance beyond formal institutional settings. Taken together, this literature reveals a persistent reluctance—or inability—within the EU to fully acknowledge and engage with the sociological dimensions that underpin civil–military cooperation, despite their decisive role in shaping outcomes.
Findings:
EU civil–military cooperation remains constrained by the systematic neglect of informal sociological practices that ultimately determine how coordination functions in practice.
Analysis of 253 EU documents revealed that topics like Hybrid Threats and European Defence Equipment address civil–military coordination in broad terms without delving into institutional or sociological perspectives. The concept of ”European practice” remains vague and unsubstantiated, with foundational questions about civilian control left unanswered.
This lack of clarity undermines discourse on civil–military relations and cooperation within the EU, risking stagnation and perpetuating an incomplete framework.
EU documents emphasize structural and operational efficiency over sociological aspects in civil–military relations.
Documents focus on logistical measures like co-location rather than fostering mutual understanding or joint cultural programs. Exceptions include the European Parliament’s emphasis on professional civil-military education and the Military Erasmus Programme, but these remain in a ”call” phase.
The institutional perspective neglects complex interpersonal dynamics crucial for sustainable cooperation, highlighting the need for a holistic approach addressing sociocultural factors.
The cyber domain offers potential for integrating sociological aspects into civil–military relations.
The cyber domain’s flexible operational framework could facilitate integration, as seen in the airspace domain. Shared vulnerabilities like cyberattacks create a space for fostering trust and enhancing mutual understanding between civil and military sectors.
Cyberspace presents an opportunity to bridge the gap between civil and military sectors, fostering more practical, adaptive, and sustainable cooperation.
The EU’s civil–military model is rooted in European cultural heritage but lacks clear development and implementation details.
The 2004 Regular Report on Turkey’s progress noted improvements toward ”European standards,” including advancements in civil liberties and civilian control of the military. However, the EU’s model remains vague, reflecting diverse interpretations across member states.
The lack of ongoing dialogue and reflection on civil–military relations limits the evolution of these dynamics, preventing the development of more nuanced approaches.
Challenges in civil–military relations are interrelated, with obstacles in one area impeding progress in another.
The EU’s comprehensive range of operational resources faces structural and cultural obstacles, resulting in fragmented efforts. Military assets may not be available when needed, and a lack of civil–military standardization can have dramatic consequences.
Despite the EU’s resources, achieving civil–military integration remains a significant challenge due to these obstacles.
Advice:
One practical improvement would be to institutionalise permanent, mixed civil–military cyber teams that train, plan, and respond together on a daily basis across shared digital environments, turning coordination from an ad hoc crisis response into a habitual, trust-based culture grounded in common tools, language, and threat awareness.