Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-dfw9g Total loading time: 0.406 Render date: 2022-08-12T01:27:44.954Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

NATO's persistence after the cold war

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Robert B. McCalla
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Get access

Abstract

Neorealist theories help explain alliance formation and longevity but have trouble explaining why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) continues to exist after the cold war. Organizational theories further our understanding by noting that organizations have strong survival instincts, yet NATO survives only as long as its members wish it to. To understand NATO's persistence after the cold war, we must turn to international institutionalist theories to explain why, contrary to neorealist expectations, NATO remains the key international security institution for its members. International institutionalist theories add the conception of NATO as part of a broad multilevel and multi-issue relationship among member states, and this broader context is necessary to explain NATO's persistence.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnett, Michael N.., and Levy, Jack S. 1991. Domestic sources of alliances and alignments: The case of Egypt, 1962–73. International Organization 45: 369–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, Lepgold, Joseph, and Unger, Danny. 1994. Burden-sharing in the Persian Gulf War. International Organization 48: 3975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beschloss, Michael R., and Talbot, Strobe. 1993. At the highest levels: The inside story of the end of the cold war. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
Blais, André, and Dion, Stephane., eds. 1991. The budget maximizing bureaucrat: Appraisals and evidence. Pittsburgh, Penn.: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Bland, Douglas L.. 1991. The Military Committee of the North Atlantic Alliance: A study of structure and strategy. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Blau, Peter M., and Meyer, Marshall W.. 1987. Bureaucracy in modern society. 3d ed.New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Boyer, Mark A.. 1993. International cooperation and public goods: Opportunities for the Western alliance. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Michael E.. 1995. The flawed logic of NATO expansion. Survival 37: 3452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, Erika v.C.. 1992. NATO's public opinion seminar indicates continuing, but not unshakeable support. NATO Review 40(2): 38.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Ted Galen., ed. 1994. The future of NATO. A special issue of The Journal of Strategic Studies 17: 1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Thomas J., and Snyder, Jack. 1990. Chain gangs and passed bucks: Predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity. International Organization 44: 137–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christopher, Warren. 08 1993. Towards a NATO summit. NATO Review 41(4): 36.Google Scholar
Christopher, Warren. 1995. Post-election foreign policy: America's leadership, America's opportunity. Foreign Policy 98: 627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Jonathan. 1993/1994. Replacing NATO. Foreign Policy 93: 2240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Benjamin J.. 1982. Balance-of-payments financing: Evolution of a regime. International Organization 36: 457–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Don. 1989. Forging the alliance: NATO, 1945–1950. London: Seeker and Warburg.Google Scholar
Cowhey, Peter F.. 1993. Domestic institutions and the credibility of international commitments: Japan and the United States. International Organization 47: 299326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePorte, Anton W.. 1990. NATO and detente: Cycles in history. In NATO after forty years, edited by Kaplan, Lawrence S., Papacosma, S. Victor, Rubin, Mark R., and Young, Ruth V.. Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources.Google Scholar
Domke, William K., Eichenberg, Richard C., and Kelleher, Catherine M.. 1987. Consensus lost? Domestic politics and the “crisis” in NATO. World Politics 39: 382–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, John S.. 1992. International regimes and alliance behavior: Explaining NATO conventional force levels. International Organization 46: 819–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, John S.. 1994/1995. NATO's functions after the cold war. Political Science Quarterly 109: 763–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, John S.. 1995. NATO and alliance theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, 21–25 02, Chicago.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. 1975. Case study and theory in political science. In Strategies of inquiry. Handbook of Political Science, vol. 7. Edited by Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W.Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Eichenberg, Richard C.. 1989. Public opinion and national security in Western Europe: Consensus lost? New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eide, Vigleik. 1992. The military dimension in the transformed alliance. NATO Review 40(4): 2025.Google Scholar
Flynn, Gregory, and Rattinger, Hans. 1985. The public and Atlantic defense. In The public and Atlantic defense, edited by Flynn, Gregory and Rattinger, Hans. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Gregory, Flynn, and Rattinger, Hans. eds. 1985. The public and Atlantic defense. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L.. 1979. Case studies and theory development: The method of structured, focused comparison. In Diplomacy: New approaches in history, theory, and policy, edited by Lauren, Paul G.New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, Charles L.. 1993. Why NATO is still best: Future security arrangements for Europe. International Security 18: 550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Colin. 1978. The Atlantic alliance: A bibliography. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard H.. 1991. Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes, 5th ed.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hellmann, Gunther., and Wolf, Reinhard 1993. Neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, and the future of NATO. Security Studies 3: 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, Matthew Jr 1966. ‘Imperialism’ in bureaucracy. American Political Science Review 60: 943–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holsti, Ole R., Hopmann, P. Terrence, and Sullivan, John D.. 1973. Unity and disintegration in international alliances: Comparative studies. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1982. Security regimes. International Organization 36: 357–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kegley, Charles W. Jr, and Raymond, Gregory A. 1990. When trust breaks down: Alliance norms and world politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O.. 1982. The demand for international regimes. International Organization 36: 325–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O.. 1984. After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O.. 1988. Alliances, threats, and the uses of neorealism. International Security 13: 169–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O.. 1989. International institutions and state power: Essays in international relations theory. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O.. 1993. Institutional theory and the realist challenge after the cold war. In Neorealism and neoliberalism: The contemporary debate, edited by Baldwin, David A.. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Martin, Lisa. 1995. The promise of institutionalist theory. International Security 20: 3951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knopf, Jeffrey W.. 1993. Beyond two-level games: Domestic-international interaction in the intermediate-range nuclear forces negotiations. International Organization 47: 599628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D.., ed. 1983. International regimes. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kriendler, John. 1993. NATO's changing role: Opportunities and constraints for peacekeeping. NATO Review 41(3): 1623.Google Scholar
Kupchan, Charles A.. 1988. NATO and the Persian Gulf: Examining intra-alliance behavior. International Organization 42: 317–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupchan, Charles A., and Kupchan, Clifford A.. 1995. The promise of collective security. International Security 20: 5261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legge, Michael. 1991. The making of NATO's new strategy. NATO Review 39(6): 914.Google Scholar
Lepgold, Joseph. 1994. Does Europe have a place in U.S. foreign policy? A domestic politics argument. In Discord and collaboration in a new Europe: Essays in honor of Arnold Wolfers, edited by Stuart, Douglas T. and Szabo, Stephen F.Washington, D.C.: Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute.Google Scholar
Lepgold, Joseph. 1995. Does the United States make sense in NATO after the cold war? On what terms? In Post-cold war policy: The international context, edited by Crotty, William. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review 65: 682–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liska, George. 1962. Nations in alliance: The limits of interdependence. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J.. 1990. Back to the future: Instability in Europe after the cold war. International Security 15: 556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J.. 1994/1995. The false promise of international institutions. International Security 19: 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J.. 1995. A realist reply. International Security 20: 8293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans. 1959. Alliances in theory and practice. In Alliance policy in the cold war, edited by Wolfers, Arnold. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1959.Google Scholar
Morrow, James D.. 1993. Arms versus allies: Trade-offs in the search for security. International Organization 47: 207–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ness, Gayl D., and Brechin, Steven R.. 1988. Bridging the gap: International organizations as organizations. International Organization 42: 245–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niskanen, William A.. 1975. Bureaucrats and politicians. Journal of Law and Economics 18: 617–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 12 1990. North Atlantic Council Ministerial Communique. NATO Review 38(6): 2224.Google Scholar
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 1991. The alliance's new Strategic Concept. NATO Review 39(6): 2532.Google Scholar
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 1995. NATO handbook. Brussels: NATO Information Service.Google Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Elrod, Mark A.. 1989. NATO burden sharing and the forces of change. International Studies Quarterly 33: 435–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, Robert E.. 1968. Alliances and American foreign policy. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Salancik, Gerald R.. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Podeh, Elie. 1995. The quest for hegemony in the Arab world: The struggle over the Baghdad Pact. New York: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Reilly, John E.. 1995. The public mood at mid-decade. Foreign Policy 98: 7693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H.. 1962. The theory of political coalitions. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1995. The false premise of realism. International Security 20: 6270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Richard W.. 1987. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. 2d ed.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Snyder, Glenn H.. 1991a. Alliances, balance, and stability. International Organization 45: 121–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Glenn H.. 1991b. Alliance theory: A neorealist first cut. In The evolution of theory in international relations, edited by Rothstein, Robert L.Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Stein, Arthur. 1983. Coordination and collaboration: Regimes in an anarchic world. In International regimes, edited by Krasner, Stephen D.Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Stuart, Douglas. 1993. NATO's future as a pan-European security institution. NATO Review 41(4): 1519.Google Scholar
Stuart, Douglas., and Tow, William 1990. The limits of alliance: NATO's out-of-area problems since 1949. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Taft, William H. IV. 1991. European security: Lessons learned from the Gulf War. NATO Review 39(3): 7–11.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. 1989. NATO at forty: Bibliographic resources. Congressional Research Service report for Congress, no. 89–175L. March.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1992. NATO: A changing alliance faces new challenges. NSIAD-92–252. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
van Foreest, Herpert. 1993. Shared civil/military usage of NATO infrastructure. NATO Review 41(4): 2325.Google Scholar
Wallander, Celeste A., and Keohane, Robert O.. 1995. Toward an institutional theory of alliances. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, 21–25 02, Chicago.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The origins of alliances. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M., 1988. Testing theories of alliance formation: The case of Southwest Asia. International Organization 42: 275316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of international politics. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley.Google Scholar
Ward, Michael Don. 1982. Research gaps in alliance dynamics. Monograph Series in World Affairs, vol. 19, no. 1. Denver, Colo.: Graduate School of International Studies.Google Scholar
Weber, Steve. 1992. Shaping the postwar balance of power: Multilateralism in NATO. International Organization 46: 633–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1995. Constructing international politics. International Security 20: 7181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Worner, Manfred. 1991. The Atlantic Alliance in a new era. NATO Review 39(1): 310.Google Scholar
Worner, Manfred. 1992. A vigorous alliance: A motor for peaceful change in Europe. NATO Review 40(6): 39.Google Scholar
94
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

NATO's persistence after the cold war
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

NATO's persistence after the cold war
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

NATO's persistence after the cold war
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *