Operation Sophia in the Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED) June 22, 2015 – March 31, 2020

(succeed by operation Irini)

The way the European Union handles crisis management has evolved over time, particularly after
the Lisbon Treaty. The need to update traditional methods of dealing with crises at the EU level led
to the creation of a more comprehensive approach. This shift was driven by the recognition that
issues of security now encompass the concept of human security. As a result, the EU's approach to
external relations expanded to include a wider range of policies and actors. The Common Security
and Defense Policy became a key part of crisis management for defense and security, alongside
other actors, both within and outside the EU.

The migration crisis has been a major and divisive issue in European politics. Italy had already
begun advocating for an EU naval operation in 2013 because it wanted the Union to share the
responsibility of dealing with the migration problem and sought protection against the associated
threats. Rome’s initial proposal failed because the benefits of the operation seemed to be
disproportionately in Italy's favor. However, a tragic incident in April 2015, in which a boat
carrying around 800 migrants sank near the Italian island of Lampedusa, resulting in the deaths of
most of the passengers, prompted EU leaders to realize that immediate action was necessary. This
led to the Council Decision 2015/778 of 18 May 2015, which authorized a military crisis
management operation to disrupt the business model of human smuggling and trafficking networks
in the South Central Mediterranean”.

The 24th September 2015 the High Representative and Vice-President of the European
Commission, Federica Mogherini, during the press conference that concluded the visit to the
Headquarters of the mission EUNAVFOR MED gave further information about the mission and
proposed a new name for the operation

“I will suggest to Member States that we change the name of our Operation: instead of calling it
EUNAVFOR MED, I suggest we use the name: Sophia. To honour the lives of the people we are
saving, the lives of people we want to protect, and to pass the message to the world that fighting the
smugglers and the criminal networks is a way of protecting human life”

It is specifically from the Mogherini’s speech that I want to start my analysis of the Sophia
Operation from a critical constructivist perspective; her words, indeed, can be analyzed as an
attempt to construct a specific narrative and understanding of the EUNAVFOR MED operation. The
choice of the name “Sophia”, as per the baby born from a Somali mother on the German frigate part
of EUNAVFOR MED Task Force, is significant because it evokes the idea of protection, and by
naming the operation after a woman, it also implies a gendered aspect of protection, attempting to
shift the focus of the operation from one of military intervention to one of protecting human life.

What is worth pointing out is that the operation entailed: boarding, search, seizure and diversion, on
the high seas, of vessels suspected of being used for human smuggling or trafficking human beings;
training of the Libyan coastguards and navy; contributing to the implementation of the UN arms
embargo on the high seas off the coast of Libya; exchange information with INTERPOL.
This framing of the operation as a means of "fighting the smugglers and criminal networks" serves
to construct a particular understanding of the operation's purpose and goals; by linking the operation
with the idea of protecting human life, Mogherini is trying to present the EUNAVFOR MED as a
humanitarian mission rather than a military one. This serves to construct a particular understanding
of the operation and positions the EU as a protector of human life. The idea of "fighting the
traffickers and criminal networks" implies that the EU is taking on a role of a protector against the
negative actors who are endangering the lives of people, so the EU is being positioned as a savior
for the people.

Given the ongoing political and security crisis in the country and the lack of a stable and
accountable government, the critical constructivist approach would question the EU's decision to
train the Libyan coastguards and navy, and its impact on the local population and other actors in the
region, including economic disruption, political instability and the effects of further militarizing the
migration management.

From a critical constructivist perspective, the Sophia operation can also be analyzed in terms of the
social and the broader global political context in which it is taking place. The refugee crisis in the
Mediterranean is a result of a combination of factors, including war, poverty, and economic
inequality; the EU's emphasis on "fighting the traffickers and criminal networks" can be interpreted
as an effort to shift the blame for the refugee crisis away from the EU and onto the traffickers and
smugglers, who are being portrayed as the main culprits.

From the critical constructivist perspective, the EU's decision to launch the Sophia operation can be
seen as an attempt to manage and control the flow of refugees and migrants, rather than as a
genuine effort to protect human life, synonym of indication of the EU’s priorities and values, being
military operations typically associated with the use of force and coercion, whereas a humanitarian
operation is associated with providing aid and assistance to people in need. By choosing to launch a
military operation, the EU is signaling that its primary focus is on control and security, rather than
on addressing the needs of the refugees and migrants.
Limits of the approach.

1. Criticism of the subjectivity of the approach: Scholars have criticized the critical constructivist
approach for its subjectivity, arguing that it is based on the interpretation of language and
discourse, which can be open to multiple interpretations. This can make it difficult to reach a
consensus on the meaning of the text or the understanding of the issue.

2. Lack of empirical grounding: Some scholars argue that the critical constructivist approach is
based on a lack of empirical grounding, as it relies heavily on the interpretation of discourse and
language, rather than on empirical data. This can make it difficult to test the validity of the
claims made using this approach.

3. Limited generalizability: Scholars have also criticized the critical constructivist approach for its
limited generalizability, arguing that it often focuses on specific cases or examples, rather than
making broader generalizations. This can make it difficult to apply the insights gained from one
case to other similar situations.

4. Criticism of the lack of predictive ability: Some scholars have criticized the critical
constructivist approach for its lack of predictive ability, arguing that it is mainly concerned with
understanding the past and present, but not the future.
5. Complexity and abstraction: Some scholars argue that the critical constructivist approach can be
complex and abstract, which can make it difficult for non-experts to understand or interpret the
results, and thus limit its usefulness and applicability