Maritime security has received increased attention by the EU during the last decade. This has resulted not only in policy documents but also in actions taken in the EU’s internal and external relations. Central cases, like EUNAVFOR Atalanta, have been given substantial attention by researchers who are divided in their interpretation of what guides or motivates the EU in this emerging policy space. Some see it as a sign of a more power and materially interest-driven EU, while others see it as a sign of the EU as humanitarian actor. None of these interpretations have however put it in relation with EU policy on maritime security. This essay takes its theoretical base in security governance theory and applies a constructivist approach to the ideational base that constitutes the frame for acting. By conducting a qualitative text analysis of EU maritime policy and comparing this with two central cases, EUNAVFOR Atalanta and CRIMGO in the Gulf of Guinea, the essay researches how the EU perceives itself in global maritime security and what norms guide its actions. The essay concludes that the EU frames itself as an actor in its external relations based on the values of international law and UN principles which pursues economic interests in maritime security but does not to any larger extent promote humanitarian rights. Furthermore it is becoming more independent and capable due to its more state-like positioning in international relations. The essays findings support security governance and constructivist theory about the formation of EU identity and norms.