Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

  • Stephanie C. Hofmann (a1)


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.



Hide All
Albright, Madeleine. 1998. “Transcript: Albright Press Conference at NATO HDQS December 8.” USIS Washington File.
Biscop, Sven. 2006. “NATO, ESDP and the Riga Summit: No Transformation Without Re-equilibration.” Egmont Papers 11. Brussels: Royal Institute for International Relations.
Brooks, Stephen G., and Wohlforth, William C.. 2005. Hard times for soft balancing. International Security 30 (1): 72108.
“Charlemagne: Berlin Minus.” 2007. Economist, February 10, 34.
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,
De Hoop Scheffer, Japp. 2007. “NATO and the EU: Time for a New Chapter.” Keynote speech by NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer,
Dempsey, Judy. 2003. “Macedonia paves way for first EU military role.” Financial Times, January 21, 2.
Drozdiak, William. 2000. “U.S. Tepid On European Defense Plan; American Stance Vexes EU Leaders.” Washington Post, March 7, A01.
European Council Nice. 2000. “Conclusions of the Presidency.”
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.
Hofmann, Stephanie. 2008. OTAN: vers un nouveau concept stratégique? Politique étrangère 1 (March): 105–16.
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.
Howorth, Jolyon, and Keeler, John, eds. 2003. Defending Europe: The EU, NATO and the Quest for European Autonomy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kissinger, Henry A. 2003. “Role Reversal and Alliance Realities.” Washington Post, February 10,
Koch, Rainer. 2003. USA wollen NATO gegen EU einschwören. Financial Times Deutschland, October 17, 11.
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.
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.
Menon, Anand. 1993. From independence to co-operation: France, NATO, and European security. International Affairs 71 (1): 1934.
NATO. 1999. “The Alliance's Strategic Concept.”
NATO. 2006. “Riga Summit Declaration.”
Nuland, Victoria. 2007. “Ambassador Nuland Advocates Strengthening NATO's Role.”
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.
Pape, Robert A. 2005. Soft balancing against the United States. International Security 30 (1): 745.
Paul, T.V. 2005. Soft balancing in the age of U.S. primacy. International Security 30 (1): 4671.
Perruche, Jean-Paul (Lt. Gen). 2006. “Progress and Achievements.” Impetus: Bulletin of the EU Military Staff. Autumn/Winter: 26.
Peters, Ingo. 2004. ESDP as a transatlantic issue: Problems of mutual ambiguity. International Studies Review 6 (3): 381402.
Posen, Barry. 2006. European Union security and defence policy: Response to unipolarity. Security Studies 15 (2): 149–86.
Reichard, Martin. 2004. Some legal issues concerning the EU-NATO Berlin Plus Agreement. Nordic Journal of International Law 73: 3767.
SHAPE 2006. “Berlin Plus agreement.”
Ulriksen, Stale, Gourlay, Catriona, and Mace, Catriona. 2004. Operation ARTEMIS: The shape of things to come? International Peacekeeping 11 (3): 508–25.
Walt, Stephen M. 1998–99. The ties that fray: Why Europe and American are approaching a parting of the ways. National Interest 54: 311.
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.
Yost, David S. 1998. NATO Transformed. The Alliance's New Roles in International Security. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace Press.

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

  • Stephanie C. Hofmann (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed