Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:45:13.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Overlapping Institutions in the Realm of International Security: The Case of NATO and ESDP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

Stephanie C. Hofmann
Stephanie C. Hofmann
Affiliation:
European University Institute, Florence. E-mail: sch35@cornell.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union's (EU) European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) both occupy the policy space of crisis management. This overlap has two effects. First, overlap has generated “chessboard politics” shaping member state strategies. Second, institutional overlap has generated a number of feedback effects. The prior existence of NATO shaped the conceptualization and organization of ESDP at its creation, and the existence of two alternative security institutions continues to influence the ways that the institutions evolve—how each institution defines security interests and how member states adjust the mandate of each institution to address changes in the security environment. Because both institutions are intergovernmentally organized and consensus-based, the actions and decisions of both institutions reflect the agreements of members. Chessboard politics and feedback effects are consequently interrelated—states strategize to affect outcomes in one venue or another, and decisions in one institution can affect decisions and behaviors in the other institution.

Type
Symposium
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 45 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

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

Albright, Madeleine. 1998. “Transcript: Albright Press Conference at NATO HDQS December 8.” USIS Washington File. http://www.fas.org/man/nato/news/1998/98120904_tlt.html.Google Scholar
Biscop, Sven. 2006. “NATO, ESDP and the Riga Summit: No Transformation Without Re-equilibration.” Egmont Papers 11. Brussels: Royal Institute for International Relations.Google Scholar
Brooks, Stephen G., and Wohlforth, William C.. 2005. Hard times for soft balancing. International Security 30 (1): 72–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Charlemagne: Berlin Minus.” 2007. Economist, February 10, 34.Google Scholar
Cornish, Paul. 2006. “EU and NATO: Co-operation or Competition?” Briefing Paper for the European Parliament, Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union, October 2006, http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/niis/NATO_EU.pdf.Google Scholar
De Hoop Scheffer, Japp. 2007. “NATO and the EU: Time for a New Chapter.” Keynote speech by NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2007/s070129b.html.Google Scholar
Dempsey, Judy. 2003. “Macedonia paves way for first EU military role.” Financial Times, January 21, 2.Google Scholar
Drozdiak, William. 2000. “U.S. Tepid On European Defense Plan; American Stance Vexes EU Leaders.” Washington Post, March 7, A01.Google Scholar
European Council Nice. 2000. “Conclusions of the Presidency.”http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/nice2_en.htm.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Douglas, and Aldinger, Charles. 2000. “EU Force Could Spell NATO's End, Cohen says; He Warns Europeans To Focus on Alliance.” Washington Post, December 6, A28.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Stephanie. 2008. OTAN: vers un nouveau concept stratégique? Politique étrangère 1 (March): 105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howorth, Jolyon. 2001. European defence and the changing politics of the EU: Hanging together or hanging separately? Journal of the Common Market Studies 39 (4): 765–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howorth, Jolyon, and Keeler, John, eds. 2003. Defending Europe: The EU, NATO and the Quest for European Autonomy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissinger, Henry A. 2003. “Role Reversal and Alliance Realities.” Washington Post, February 10, http://www.cfr.org/publication/5605/role_reversal_and_alliance_realities.html.Google Scholar
Koch, Rainer. 2003. USA wollen NATO gegen EU einschwören. Financial Times Deutschland, October 17, 11.Google Scholar
Kupferschmidt, Frank. 2006. “Putting Strategic Partnership to the Test. Cooperation Between NATO and the EU in Operation Althea.” SWP Research Paper No. 3. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.Google Scholar
Martinelli, Marta. 2006. Helping transition: The EU police mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (EUPOL Kinshasa) in the framework of EU policies in the Great Lakes. European Foreign Affairs Review 11: 379–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menon, Anand. 1993. From independence to co-operation: France, NATO, and European security. International Affairs 71 (1): 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NATO. 1999. “The Alliance's Strategic Concept.”http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-065e.htm.Google Scholar
NATO. 2006. “Riga Summit Declaration.”http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2006/p06-150e.htm.Google Scholar
Nuland, Victoria. 2007. “Ambassador Nuland Advocates Strengthening NATO's Role.”http://nato.usmission.gov/ambassador/2007/Amb_Nuland_Brussels_101607.htm.Google Scholar
Olson, Richard. 2007. “From Riga to Bucharest—NATO in Defense of our Common Security and Values.” Speech at the Conference on “Europe at the Crossroads: Agenda from Riga to Bucharest” Riga, Latvia. http://nato.usmission.gov/News/Olson_Oct15.htm.Google Scholar
Pape, Robert A. 2005. Soft balancing against the United States. International Security 30 (1): 7–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, T.V. 2005. Soft balancing in the age of U.S. primacy. International Security 30 (1): 46–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perruche, Jean-Paul (Lt. Gen). 2006. “Progress and Achievements.” Impetus: Bulletin of the EU Military Staff. Autumn/Winter: 2–6.Google Scholar
Peters, Ingo. 2004. ESDP as a transatlantic issue: Problems of mutual ambiguity. International Studies Review 6 (3): 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posen, Barry. 2006. European Union security and defence policy: Response to unipolarity. Security Studies 15 (2): 149–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichard, Martin. 2004. Some legal issues concerning the EU-NATO Berlin Plus Agreement. Nordic Journal of International Law 73: 37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SHAPE 2006. “Berlin Plus agreement.”http://www.nato.int/shape/news/2003/shape_eu/se030822a.htm.Google Scholar
Ulriksen, Stale, Gourlay, Catriona, and Mace, Catriona. 2004. Operation ARTEMIS: The shape of things to come? International Peacekeeping 11 (3): 508–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1998–99. The ties that fray: Why Europe and American are approaching a parting of the ways. National Interest 54: 3–11.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 2002. Keeping the world “off balance”: Self restraint and U.S. foreign policy. In America Unrivaled. The Future of the Balance of Power, ed. Ikenberry, G. John. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Yost, David S. 1998. NATO Transformed. The Alliance's New Roles in International Security. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace Press.Google Scholar