歐洲聯盟「彼得斯堡任務」
對其對外軍事行動的作用

「彼得斯堡任務」為歐洲聯盟安全防衛政策的重要基礎構成之一，其主要的內容有三項：人道與救援任務、維和任務、危機處理中的戰鬥任務，包含和平製造。「彼得斯堡任務」規定於現行歐盟條約的第二十七條、里斯本條約的第二十八條（若2008年批准程序順利完成）。「彼得斯堡任務」給予歐盟在其安全防衛政策架構下，對外行動的基本目標，使得歐盟得以利用自身的名義來執行對外行動，特別是在軍事層面。然而，「彼得斯堡任務」一開始並非是由歐盟產生，而是誕生於西歐聯盟於1992年6月發表的「彼得斯堡宣言」中，以因應冷戰結束後西歐聯盟角色的轉變。其中最重要的角色轉變為西歐聯盟成為「未來歐洲統合的重要構成」。也因為如此，歐盟在1996到1997年召開的政府間會議中，決定將西歐聯盟的重要功能移至歐盟架構中，而其中也包括了「彼得斯堡任務」。接著，「彼得斯堡任務」在歐洲憲法條約中作出了更新，突顯了歐盟在衝突預防與危機處理的哲學，雖然歐洲憲法條約未能成功完成批准程序，但「彼得斯堡任務」還是繼續存在於2007年12月8日簽署的里斯本條約中。從三項「彼得斯堡任務」的內涵當中，可以發現到，為了應付冷戰結束後的安全局勢，它們各自的軍事使用程度並不相同，並且歐盟對部份內涵的解釋，未必與聯合國的解釋一致。這種狀態雖然引起許多的討論，甚至爭議，但同時也為歐盟在執行歐洲安全防衛政策架構下對外行動時，提供許多彈性的空間，以應付多變及複雜的狀況。而接下來必須要透過歐盟對外軍事行動的實際執行，才能驗證「彼得斯堡任務」對於歐盟對外軍事行動的作用與影響，在本研究中列舉了五項對外行動（「和平女神」任務（Concordia operation）、「療癒女神」任務（Althea operation）、「阿緹米斯」任務（Artemis operation）、「EUFOR RD Congo」任務、「EUFOR Tchad/RCA」任務）作為檢驗之實例。因此發現到，「彼得斯堡任務」雖然在條約中設置可以說是很完整，但是歐盟對外行動的內容、規磨、成效，卻顯示出與條約之期望有落差，其中最大的原因在於歐盟成員國間的防衛能力水準參疵不齊，所以防衛能力的增進也已成為歐盟在防衛領域的首要工作。本文之研究途徑採用的是國際關係中的「制度主義」，以歐盟各個成員國自身利益的匯合，來思考「彼得斯堡任務」的誕生、納入歐盟條約與更新；由於「彼得斯堡任務」已成為歐盟條約的一部份，所以從「彼得斯堡任務」的內涵與歐盟對外軍事行動的實踐，來發現「彼得斯堡任務」本身的強度與性質，所促成的「制度化集體行為」。本研究的架構以「彼得斯堡任務」的誕生、內涵，以及歐盟對外軍事行動為主要內容，藉由討論「彼得斯堡任務」本身的內容，再透過歐盟對外軍事行動檢驗「彼得斯堡任務」內涵的實踐，進而發現「彼得斯堡任務」在條約中與實踐上，其內容與成效是否有落差，最後對兩者提出歸納，並對歐盟對外軍事行動提出展望。

關鍵字

西歐聯盟；歐洲聯盟；彼得斯堡任務；歐洲安全防衛政策

並列摘要

“Petersberg Tasks” are one of important ingredient of European Security and Defense Policy（ESDP）. And there are three tasks in it：humanitarian and rescue task, peacekeeping, combat task in crisis management including peacemaking. “Petersberg Tasks” are located in the Article 27 in present Treaty on European Union and the Article 28 in the Lisbon Treaty.（if the ratification procedure is to accomplish during 2008）. Basically, the most important is that “Petersberg Tasks” provide goals to the military operation under the ESDP of the EU. However, “Petersberg Tasks” is originally born in the “Petersberg declaration” of Western European Union（WEU）. And it is resulted from the changing role of WEU in the post-Cold War era. To the EU, according to the TEU, the WEU will be the integral part in the future. Thus, 1996-1997 intergovernmental conference of the EU finally decided to remove several significant functions, including “Petersberg Tasks” of course, from the WEU to the EU structure in Amsterdam Treaty. And then “Petersberg Tasks,” for coping with terrorism, have an extensive renewal in the Treaty on Established Constitution of Europe. Despite the failure of EU constitution and the waiting of Lisbon Treaty’s ratification procedure, the renewed “Petersberg Tasks” more appeal the EU philosophies that come from the original one on conflict prevention and crisis management than ever. Moreover, implications of those three “Petersberg Tasks” are not completely in accordance with what the UN explained. It may arise some discussions and even arguments, but there is no doubt that this difference will bring flexibility to the EU military operation. But we still have to look into the implementation of EU military operation for revealing the effect from “Petersberg Tasks.” There are five EU military operation demonstrated in the context：Concordia operation, Althea operation, Artemis operation, EUFOR RD Congo and EUFOR Tchad/RCA. Finally there is a main finding in the thesis and that is the gap between “Petersberg Tasks” are taken as a treaty device and as an expectation in the military operation practice. And the main problem is that the differences of defense capability among the EU member states. The main research approach is the using of “Institutionalism”. Firstly, to think over the birth, merging into Amsterdam Treaty and renewal of “Petersberg Tasks” through look over the accumulation of EU member states’ interest. Secondly, to analyze the collective institutional behavior which is resulted in “Petersberg Tasks” by discussing the implication and the practice of “Petersberg Tasks”. In short, this thesis emphasizes on the birth and the implication of “Petersberg Tasks”, and also focus on the practice of “Petersberg Tasks” through observing EU military operation implementation.