Segurança partilhada : limites da cláusula de defesa mútua

Abstract

O Tratado de Lisboa, que entrou em vigor em 2009, introduz um conjunto de alterações específicas relativamente à Política Externa e de Segurança Comum. Por um lado, a mudança de designação de Política Europeia de Segurança e Defesa para Política Comum de Segurança e Defesa reforça que os Estados membros têm interesses comuns de segurança e defesa e procuram desenvolvê-los em conjunto. Paralelamente, observou-se a introdução de duas importantes cláusulas de solidariedade em matéria de segurança e defesa: a cláusula de mútua defesa, que consubstancia o compromisso político de ajuda mútua na defesa do território; e a cláusula de solidariedade, válida em caso de catástrofes naturais ou provocadas pelo Homem, bem como em caso de atentados terroristas. Numa conjuntura de segurança marcada pelo surgimento de novas ameaças, de cariz transnacional e assimétrico, a União tem demonstrado flexibilidade para adotar estratégias de segurança baseadas nos princípios em que se baseia, isto é, de solidariedade entre os seus Estados-membros. De facto, as Estratégias de segurança que tem vindo a adotar desde 2003 permitem observar a assunção de que nenhum Estado é capaz de fazer face aos problemas complexos da atualidade autonomamente. O principal objetivo deste artigo é, neste sentido, analisar as limitações que se colocam à aplicação efetiva da cláusula de defesa mútua, enquadrada como instrumento legal à disposição dos Estados-membros através do artigo 42.º, n.º7 do Tratado da União Europeia. A invocação da cláusula, pela primeira e única vez, pela França em 2015, proporciona-nos um ponto de referência importante para a análise do modo como foi aplicada. As principais conclusões do trabalho permitem aferir que a flexibilidade que caracteriza a base legal da cláusula de defesa mútua constitui um obstáculo para a inequívoca definição dos parâmetros de licitude do recurso ao uso da força pelos EM. Com efeito, a sua plena aplicação implica a concretização jurídica e operacional da cláusula de defesa mútua, no sentido de aprovar uma estrutura legal que enquadre os mecanismos práticos e instrumentos jurídicos que devem orientar a atuação dos EM, mas também das instituições pertinentes.

There’s a growing challenge within human resources in relation to the increasing internal and external demands upon organizations. Accordingly, professional development must promote the integration of new workers from the moment they begin their role in an organization, as this first impression is critical and will define the rest of their professional careers. The Public Security Police, being an institution that develops its assets, cannot neglect an officer’s early integration because the patterns of police actions are increasingly scanned by external entities as well as by society itself. A police officer today needs to meet high standards and, due to this, there must be a demanding and properly structured training process. Police schools should be able to determine the best methods of professional development and keep up with the different adult learning processes, so that they are able to project their strategic policies from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy. This paper is the result of an analysis of the current police training at the Police Practice School through interviews with high-ranking police officers of Public Security Police who have a deep knowledge of the structure of the Agent Training Class. It also includes a case study of a mentoring program, called Field Training Officer, with interviews with FTOs from different police departments in the American state of Arizona about the importance of the program in the integration of new agents. It is concluded that there are improvements to be made in the process of integrating the new agents of the Public Security Police, with the general opinion that a properly structured mentoring program, like the FTO, would give added value to new agents’ professional development. The Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force in 2009, introduces several specific changes regarding the Common Foreign and Security Policy. On the one hand, the change of designation from “European Security and Defence Policy” to “Common Security and Defence Policy” reinforces that Member States have common interests in security and defence and seek to develop them together. At the same time, it introduced two important solidarity clauses on security and defence: (i) the mutual defence clause, which embodies the political commitment to mutual aid regarding the defence of the territory; and (ii) the solidarity clause, valid in the event of natural or man-made disasters, as well as in the event of terrorist attacks. In a security context marked by the emergence of new threats of a transnational and asymmetric nature the Union has shown flexibility to adopt security strategies based on the principles on which it is based: solidarity among its Member States. In fact, the Security Strategies that the European Union has been adopting since 2003 allow us to observe the assumption that no State is capable of autonomously facing today’s complex problems. In this sense, the main purpose of this paper is to analyse the limitations regarding the effective application of the mutual defence clause, framed as a legal instrument available to Member States through article 42, paragraph 7 of the Treaty on European Union. The invocation of the clause, for the first and only time, by France in 2015, provides us with an important reference point for analysing how it was applied. The main conclusions of the investigation allow us to assert that the flexibility that characterizes the legal basis of the mutual defence clause constitutes an obstacle to the unequivocal definition of the lawfulness parameters of the use of force by Member States. Indeed, its application implies the legal and operational implementation of the mutual defence clause in order to approve a legal framework that encompasses the practical mechanisms and legal instruments that should guide the actions of Member States as well as that of the relevant institutions.