DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO EU INTEGRATION ON THE COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENSE POLICY AND TURKEY-EU RELATIONS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PESCO

Öz

As a supranational organization, the EU is often the sum of the will of member states with conflicting and conflicting interests. In the view of realism, an international organization is not expected to have the authority and autonomy to impose sanctions on member states. However, if the member states unite on the highest common denominator in accordance with their foreign policy interests from time to time, the EU can also assume roles as a global security actor through various legal and institutional arrangements in the field of security and defense. The EU, which has progressed as a sluggish and bureaucratic giant with the guidance of the Union around two different views, especially the Europeanist and Atlanticist member states of the big and powerful member states, has signed new formations and documents that require more concrete steps in recent years, with the influence of the current security crises. Claiming to be a global actor with strategic autonomy and capacity to defend itself, the Union has embarked on a new integration effort called the "differentiated integration model" in order to overcome the Europeanist-Atlanticist dilemma. The Strategic Compass adopted in March 2022 and the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) projects have also been important initiatives that demonstrate this effort of the EU. The fact that the participation of third parties in PESCO projects has become possible has opened a new window for Turkey, which is an ally with European countries, especially in the context of NATO. The roles that Turkey will take in this cooperation process, which has a critical importance in European defense especially in terms of the Atlanticist integration model and whose interests conflict with the EU, will be of great importance for the security interests of both Europe and our country. For this reason, in the study, first of all, the differences in the Europeanist and Atlanticist approaches towards the integration of the EU in the field of security and defense and the differentiated integration model developed to overcome these differences of approach are explained. The current situation of EU-Turkey relations has been examined in this integration model, which has been embodied with PESCO, which is up-to-date and closer to the Atlanticist integration model, when the EU Council invited the United Kingdom to PESCO's military mobility project on 15 November 2022. As a result, some inferences were made about the future of EU-Turkey relations in the context of the EU's Strategic Compass.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• PESCO
• Strategic Compass
• EU and Turkey relations
• international security

AB’NİN ORTAK GÜVENLİK VE SAVUNMA POLİTİKASINDA BÜTÜNLEŞMESİNE YÖNELİK FARKLI YAKLAŞIMLAR VE PESCO KAPSAMINDA TÜRKİYE-AB İLİŞKİLERİ

Öz

Uluslararüstü bir örgüt olarak AB, çoğu zaman birbiri ile çelişen ve çatışan çıkarları olan üye devletlerin iradelerinin toplamından oluşmaktadır. Realist perspektiften, uluslararası bir örgütün üye devletlere yaptırım uygulayacak otorite ve özerkliğe sahip olması da beklenmemektedir. Ancak yine de üye devletlerin zaman zaman, dış politika çıkarlarına uygun olan en yüksek ortak paydada birleşmesi durumunda, AB de güvenlik ve savunma alanında çeşitli yasal ve kurumsal düzenlemeler aracılığıyla küresel bir güvenlik aktörü gibi roller üstlenebilmektedir. Bugüne kadar özellikle büyük ve güçlü üye devletlerin Avrupacı ve Atlantikçi olmak üzere iki farklı görüş etrafında Birliği yönlendirmesiyle ağır aksak ve bürokratik bir dev olarak ilerleyen AB, son yıllarda güncel güvenlik krizlerinin de etkisiyle daha somut adımlar atmayı gerektiren yeni oluşum ve belgelere imza atmıştır. Stratejik özerkliğe sahip ve kapasitesi kendini savunmaya yeten küresel bir aktör olma iddiasını ortaya koyan Birlik, Avrupacı-Atlantikçi ikilemini aşabilmek için “farklılaştırılmış işbirliği modeli” olarak adlandırılan yeni bir bütünleşme çabasına girmiştir. Mart 2022’de kabul edilen Stratejik Pusula Belgesi ve Kalıcı Yapılandırılmış İşbirliği (PESCO) projeleri de AB’nin bu çabasını gösteren önemli girişimler olmuşlardır. PESCO projelerine üçüncü tarafların da katılımının mümkün hale gelmesi, özellikle NATO bağlamında Avrupa ülkeleri ile müttefik olan Türkiye için yeni bir pencerenin açılmasına neden olmuştur. Avrupa savunmasında özellikle Atlantikçi bütünleşme modeli bakımından kritik bir öneme sahip olan ve bugüne kadar AB ile ilişkilerinde çıkarları çatışan Türkiye’nin bu işbirliği sürecinde alacağı roller hem Avrupa’nın hem de ülkemizin güvenlik çıkarları bakımından büyük önem taşıyacaktır. Bu nedenle çalışmada öncelikle AB’nin güvenlik ve savunma alanında bütünleşmesine yönelik Avrupacı ve Atlantikçi yaklaşım farklılıkları ve bu yaklaşım farklılıklarını aşmak için geliştirilen farklılaştırılmış işbirliği modeli açıklanmıştır. 15 Kasım 2022’de AB Konseyi’nin Birleşik Krallık’ı PESCO’nun askeri hareketlilik projesine davet etmesiyle güncelliğini koruyan ve Atlantikçi bütünleşme modeline daha çok yaklaşan PESCO ile vücut bulmuş bu işbirliği modelinde AB-Türkiye ilişkilerinin mevcut durumu incelenmiştir. Sonuç olarak da AB’nin Stratejik Pusula belgesi bağlamında AB-Türkiye ilişkilerinin geleceği hakkında birtakım çıkarımlarda bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• PESCO
• Stratejik Pusula
• AB-Türkiye ilişkileri
• uluslararası güvenlik

Kaynakça

1. AB Komisyonu. (19.10.2021). 2021 Türkiye Raporu, https://ab.gov.tr/siteimages/birimler/kpb/2021_turkiye_raporu_tr.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 21.09.2022).
2. Alcaro R. & Tocci N. (2020). The European Union in a COVID World, Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), 20 (34), 1-14.
3. Aydın Düzgit, S. (January 2018). PESCO and Third Countries: Breaking The Deadlock in European Security, FEUTURE Voices, Sayı:3, https://feuture.uni-koeln.de/sites/feuture/pdf/FEUTURE_Voice_No_3_S._Aydin-Duezgit.pdf, (Aydın Düzgit, 2018). (Erişim Tarihi:14.12.2022).
4. Baç, M.M. (2007). The European Union and 2nd Pillar Integration: The Common Foreign and Security Policy, Yannis A. Stivachtis (Ed.), The State of European Integration, içinde (ss.3-18). Ashgate, Great Britain.
5. Balzan, S. (2020, 20 May). Malta gives ultimatum to EU with threat to veto Irini force commander choice, https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/102460/malta_gives_ultimatum_to_eu_with_threat_to_veto_irini_commanderinchief_choice#.YxCtWnZByUl, (Erişim Tarihi: 01.09.2022).
6. Bessems, R. (2021). Moving outside the Box: Military Mobility as the Key to Enabling European Security & Defense, Atlantisch Perspectief- Special Edition: NATO Enablement:Moving forward, 45 (4), 28-32.
7. Bickerton, C. J.,Hodson D. & Puetter, U. (2015). The New Intergovernmentalism: European Integration in thePost-Maastricht Er., Journal of Common Market Studies, 53 (4), 703-722.
8. Bildik, M. (08.02.2022). Turkish Israeli Rapprochement On The Eastern Mediterranean Geostrategy and Possible Reflections On Military Project Of PESCO Framework, Foreign Policy Institute, https://foreignpolicy.org.tr/turkish-israeli-rapprochement-on-the-eastern-mediterranean-geostrategy-and-possible-reflections-on-military-project-of-pesco-framework/, (Erişim Tarihi:14.12.2022). (Bildik, 2022).

9. Blockmans S. & Crosson D.M. (2021). PESCO: A force for positive ıntegration in EU defence, European Foreign Affairs Review, (26), Special Issue, 87-110.
10. Bonds, T.M., Mazarr, M.J., Dobbins J., Lostumbo, M.J. Johnson,M. Shlapak,D.A. Martini,J. Boston, S., Garafola C.L., Gordon IV, J., Efron, S., Steinberg, P.S., Crane, Y.K. & Norton, D.M., (2019). America's Strategy-Resource Mismatch Addressing the Gaps Between U.S. National Strategy and Military Capacity, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica.
11. Bull, H. (1982). Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?, Journal of Common Market Studies, 12 (2), 149-164.
12. Buzan, B. (1991). People, States and Fear-The National Security Problem in International Relations in the post-cold world era, Second Edition, ECPR Press, UK.
13. Calleo, D. (2001). Rethinking Europe’s Future, NJ: Princeton University Press, Princeton.
14. Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/909, establishing a common set of governance rules for PESCO projects, 25 June 2018, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018D0909&rid=4, (Erişim Tarihi: 26.08.2022). (Council Decision 2018/909).
15. Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2244, of 14 November 2022 on the participation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the PESCO project Military Mobility, https://www.pesco.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Council-Decision-Participation-of-the-UK-of-GB-and-NI-in-the-PESCO-project-Military-Mobility.pdf. (Council Decision, 2022/2244).
16. Council Decision 2017/2315 of 11 December 2017 establishing permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) and determining the list of participating Member States, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D2315&from=EN, (Erişim Tarihi: 04.04.2022). (Council Decision, 2017/2315).
17. Council of the EU (2018). Council Decision of 6 March 2018 establishing the list of projects to be developed under PESCO, Brüksel. 6 Mart 2018. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/33065/st06393-en18-council-decision-pesco_press.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 12.06.2019).
18. Council of the EU, A Strategic Compass for a stronger EU security and defence in the next decade, 21 March 2022, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/03/21/a-strategic-compass-for-a-stronger-eu-security-and-defence-in-the-next-decade/, (Erişim Tarihi: 01.06.2022). (Council of the EU, 21 March 2022).
19. Council of the European Union, (2009). European Security Strategy - A Secure Europe in A Better World, 2009, 7-26, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/30823/qc7809568enc.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 10.06.2022). (ESS, 2008).
20. Council of the European Union, (2017), Council conclusions on the Implementation of the Joint Declaration by the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission and the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 4802/17, 5 December 2017, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/31947/st14802en17.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022).
21. Council Of The European Union, A Secure Europe In A Better World European Security Strategy, Brussels, 8 December 2003, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15895-2003-INIT/en/pdf,. (Erişim Tarihi: 10.06.2022). (ESS, 2003)
22. Council of the European Union, Council Decision establishing the general conditions under which third States could exceptionally be invited to participate in individual PESCO projects, 27 October 2020, Brussels, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15529-2018-INIT/en/pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 31.08.2022). (Council Decision, 2020).
23. Council of the European Union, Press release, EU defence cooperation: Council sets conditions for third-state participation in PESCO projects, 05 November 2020, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/11/05/eu-defence-cooperation-council-sets-conditions-for-third-state-participation-in-pesco-projects/, (Erişim Tarihi: 26.08.2022).
24. Council of the European Union. (21 March 2021). A Strategic Compass for Security and Defence For a European Union that protects its citizens, values and interests and contributes to international peace and security, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7371-2022-INIT/en/pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 22.09.2022). (Strategic Compass, 2022).
25. Council Of The European Union, (26 November 2002). Presidency Conclusions - Brussels, 24 and 25 October 2002, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/20917/72968.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 14.11.2022).
26. Deutsche Welle. (17.05.2021). Hollanda: Türkiye PESCO için başvurdu, https://www.dw.com/tr/hollanda-t%C3%BCrkiye-pesco-i%C3%A7in-ba%C5%9Fvurdu/a-57562638, (Erişim Tarihi: 21.09.2022).
27. Duchene, F. (1972). Europe’s Role in World Peace, Richard Mayne (Ed.), Europe Tomorrow: Sixteen Europeans Look Ahead, içinde (ss.32-47). London-Fontana, 1972.
28. EEAS, (14.06.2019). The European Union's Global Strategy : Three years on, moving forward A Global Strategy for the European Union's Foreign and Security Policy, https://www.avrupa.info.tr/sites/default/files/uploads/eu_global_strategy_2019.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 26.11.2021). (Three Years On…2019)
29. EEAS. (2022). PESCO Factsheet 2021, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/pesco_factsheet_2021-12.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 26.08.2022). (PESCO Factsheet 2021).
30. EEAS. (24.03.2022). A Strategic Compass for Security and Defence, 24.03.2022, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/strategic-compass-security-and-defence-0_en, (Erişim Tarihi: 01.06.2022).(Strategic Compass, 2022).
31. EEAS. (June 2016). Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign And Security Policy, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eugs_review_web_0.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 01.09.2022). (Global Strategy, 2016).
32. EEAS. (November 2017). Joint Communication on improving military mobility in the EU, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/joint_communication_to_the_european_parliament_and_the_council_-_improving_military_mobility_in_the_european_union.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 16.09.2022).
33. Ekim, S. (2018). Europe in an Uncertain World: Values vs. Security Interests. Global Turkey in Europe, Documenti IAI 18.
34. EurLex, Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - PROTOCOLS - Protocol (No 10) on permanent structured cooperation established by Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union, Official Journal 115, 09/05/2008 S. 0275 – 0277, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12008M%2FPRO%2F10, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.08.2022).(TEU, Protocol No:10).
35. EurLex, Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12016M%2FTXT&qid=1661433061270, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.08.2022). (TEU, 2020).
36. Eur-Lex, Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1909 of 12 November 2019 amending and updating Decision (CFSP) 2018/340 establishing the list of projects to be developed under PESCO, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019D1909, (Erişim Tarihi: 13.04.2022). (Council Decision, 2019/1909).
37. Eur-Lex, Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2008 of 16 November 2021 amending and updating Decision (CFSP) 2018/340 establishing the list of projects to be developed under PESCO, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021D2008, (Erişim Tarihi:14.12.2022). (Council Decision, 2021/2008).
38. European Defence Agency, (June 2018). EDA and Bulgarian EU Presidency highlight importance of military mobility, https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2018/06/07/eda-and-bulgarian-eu-presidency-highlight-importance-of-military-mobility, (Erişim Tarihi: 19.09.2022).
39. European Defence Ageny, Military Mobility, https://eda.europa.eu/what-we-do/all-activities/activities-search/military-mobility, (Erişim Tarihi: 22.09.2022).
40. Fiott, D. (2021). European Sovereignty: Strategy and interdependence, European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), Chaillot Paper/169, ss.31-42.
41. Fleischer, B. (2015). A European Army? The European Defense Community and the Politics of Transnational Influence in Post-War Europe, 1950-1954, (A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor), Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences, Bremen.
42. Gavin, V. (2010). Were the Interests Really Parallel? The United States, Western Europe and the Early Years of the European Integration Project, Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 8 (1), 32-43.
43. Güler, G. (11.05.2019). Nato Krizi, PESCO ve Doğu Akdeniz, Önce Vatan Gazetesi, https://www.oncevatan.com.tr/nato-krizi-pesco-ve-dogu-akdeniz-makale,44940.html, (Erişim Tarihi: 21.09.2022).
44. Hanbay, Ş. (2013). Involvement of Non-EU European NATO Members in Common Security and Defense Policy: The Turkish Case, Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınları No: 368, Ankara.
45. Hoffmann, S. (1965). The European Process at Atlantic Cross Purposes. Journal of Common Market Studies, 3 (2), 85-101.
46. House of Commons Defence Committee. (2018). Indispensable Allies: US, NATO, and UK Defence Relations, Eighth Report of Session 2017–19, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/387/387.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.08.2022).
47. Hürriyet. (28.07.2021). Kurz hükümetinden Türkiye’ye yeni engel, https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/dunya/kurz-hukumetinden-turkiyeye-yeni-engel-41861056, (Erişim Tarihi: 21.09.2021).
48. Jörg, V.L. & Ulrich, B. (2017). Something New in the West, Zeit Online, 25 Oktober 2017, https://www.zeit.de/politik/2017-10/foreign-policy-germany-atlanticism-relationships-values, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.08.2022).
49. Kagan, R. (2003). Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
50. Keohane, R.O. & Nye, J.S. (2011). Power and Interdependence. Fourth Edition, Pearson, London.
51. Kısacık S. & Erenel F. (2019). Doğu Akdeniz güvenlik algılamaları bağlamında, Kalıcı Yapılandırılmış İşbirliği Savunma Anlaşması (PESCO) ve enerji güvenliği meselelerinin Avrupa Birliği-Türkiye ilişkilerine olası yansımalarını anlamak. Yozgat Bozok Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2 (1), 51-76.
52. KKTC Enformasyon Dairesi. (06 Mayıs 2019). Türkiye, NATO törenine GKRY’nin davet edilmesini kınadı, https://pio.mfa.gov.ct.tr/turkiye-nato-torenine-gkrynin-davet-edilmesini-kinadi/, (Erişim Tarihi: 21.09.2022).
53. Lazarou, E. & Lațici, T. (2020). PESCO: Ahead of the strategic review, European Parliamentary Research Service, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/652051/EPRS_BRI(2020)652051_EN.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 26.08.2022).
54. Marafona, M. (2021). European Reactions to AUKUS and Implications for EU Strategic Autonomy, Istituto Affari Internazionali, Joint Brief, No:5.
55. Maull, H. (2005). Europe and The New Balance. International Affairs, 81 (4), 775-799.
56. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994-1995). The False Promise of International Institutions, International Security, 19(3), 5-49.
57. Meijer H. & Brooks S.G. (2021). Illusions of Autonomy: Why Europe Cannot Provide for Its Security If the United States Pulls Back, International Security, 45 (4),7-43.
58. Milli Savunma Bakanlığı. (14.06.2022). Millî Savunma Bakanı Hulusi Akar, NATO Parlamenter Asamblesi (NATO PA) Siyasi Komisyon ile Akdeniz ve Orta Doğu Özel Grubu Ortak Toplantısı'nda Konuştu, https://www.msb.gov.tr/SlaytHaber/1462022-75062, (Erişim Tarihi: 21.09.2022).
59. Molenaar, A. (2021). Unlocking European Defence In Search of the Long Overdue Paradigm Shift, Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), 21 (1), 01-26.
60. Moravcsik, A. (1991). Negotiating the Single European Act: national interests and conventional statecraft in the European Community”. International Organization, 45 (1), 19-56.
61. Müftüler-Baç, M. (2017). Turkey’s future with the European Union: an alternative model of differentiated integration, Turkish Studies, 18 (3), 416-438.
62. NATO. (06 December 2016). Statement on the implementation of the Joint Declaration signed by the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, and the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_138829.htm, (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022).
63. NATO. (08 June 2018). Third progress report on the implementation of the common set of proposals endorsed by EU and NATO Councils on 6 December 2016 and 5 December 2017, https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_06/20180608_180608-3rd-Joint-progress-report-EU-NATO-eng.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.06.2022).
64. NATO. (8 July 2016). Joint declaration by the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, and the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133163.htm, (Erişim Tarihi: 13.06.2022).
65. Netherlands Ministry of Defence, National Plan Military Mobility- The Netherlands as a transit nation, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/blg-965640.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 20.09.2022).
66. Nicol, W. & Trevor S.C.(1994). Understanding The New European Community, Guilford and King’s Lynn, Biddles Press, England.
67. Noyan O. (27.07.2021), Austria opposes Turkey’s bid to join EU military Project, Euractive, https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/austria-opposes-turkeys-bid-to-join-eu-military-project/, (Erişim Tarihi: 21.09.2022).
68. NSPA. (23 March 2021). Danish Army Acquires New Missile System Through The Nato Support and Procurement Agency, https://www.nspa.nato.int/news/2021/danish-Spike-LR-2, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.01.2022).
69. Nye, J.S. (2004). Soft Power- The Means to Success in World Politics, Public Affairs, New York.
70. Oswald, F. (2006). Europe and the United States: The Emerging Security Partnership, Westport, Praeger.
71. PESCO. (01 Eylül 2022). About PESCO, Projects. https://www.pesco.europa.eu/#about. (Erişim Tarihi: 21.09.2022).
72. Rynning, S. (2011). Realism and the common security and defence policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49 (1), 23-42.
73. Scazzieri, L. (25 March 2022). Does the Strategic Compass herald a stronger EU in security and defence?. CER Insight, https://www.cer.eu/insights/does-strategic-compass-herald-stronger-eu-security-and-defence, (Erişim Tarihi: 01.06.2022).
74. Schimmelfennig, F. (2018). Brexit: Differentiated disintegration in the European Union, Journal of European Public Policy, 25(8), 1154–1173.
75. Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (2002). Theorizing EU enlargement: Research, focus, hypotheses, and the state of research, Journal of European Public Policy, 9 (4), 500-528.
76. Smith, K.E. (2003). The European Union: A Distinctive Actor in International Relations, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 9 (2), 103-113.
77. Şahin, Y. (2021). “Küresel Britanya” ve AB Savunma Girişimleri: Brexit Sonrası Birleşik Krallık-AB Savunma İşbirliği, İktisadi Kalkınma Vakfı Değerlendirme Notu, No: 251, Aralık 2021, https://www.ikv.org.tr/images/files/Degerlendirme_Brexit_sonrasi_BK_AB_savunma_isbirli%C4%9Fi.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 22.09.2022).
78. T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı Resmi İnternet Sitesi. (22 Mart 2022). Açıklamalar Güncel Açıklamalar Sayı: 98, AB Tarafından Onaylanan “Stratejik Pusula” Başlıklı Belge Hk., https://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_-98_-ab-tarafindan-onaylanan-stratejik-pusula-baslikli-belge-hk.tr.mfa, (Erişim Tarihi: 22.09.2022).
79. Tardy, T.(2021). For a New NATO-EU Bargain, EGMONT Royal Institute for International Relations, Sayı:138, 1-5.
80. The Military Balance. (2021).Chapter Four: Europe, , 121 (1), 66-163.
81. The Netherlands at International Organisations, (14.12.2021). Official welcome for the US, Canada and Norway in EU Military Mobility Project, https://www.permanentrepresentations.nl/latest/news/2021/12/14/official-welcome-for-the-us-canada-and-norway-in-eu-military-mobility-project, (19.09.2022).
82. Tocci, N. (2017). Framing the EU Global Strategy: A Stronger Europe in a Fragile World, Hampshire and New York.
83. Turhan, E. (2019). Avrupa Birliği’nin Ortak Güvenlik ve Savunma Politikası’nın savunma boyutunun gelişiminde PESCO’nun rolü: Fırsatlar ve zorluklar. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 20 (2) , 347-374.
84. Ülger, İ.K. (2002). Avrupa Birliği’nde siyasal bütünleşme- ortak dış ve güvenlik politikasının oluşumu-, Ankara.
85. Yıldız, M. (16.06.2022). Akar’ın NATO-AB’den İstediği “İlk Küçük Adım” Ne?, https://muyesseryildiz.com/2022/06/16/akarin-nato-abden-istedigi-ilk-kucuk-adim-ne/, (Erişim Tarihi: 21.09.2022).