Explaining states’ burden-sharing behaviour within NATO

Abstract

This article reviews the state of literature relevant to states’ burden-sharing behaviour within NATO. The purpose is two-fold: first, to delineate the different dependent variables and evaluate whether important questions have been left untreated, and, second, to assess strengths and weaknesses of the explanations that have been proffered. It is argued that while the system-level explanations capture major incentives to contribute, the domestic-level explanations are necessary in understanding specific decision-outcomes. The existing integrative models are superior to each explanation or level of analysis individually but tend to portrait domestic leaders as rather passive registers of international and domestic pressures. Empirically speaking, it is argued that more studies of contributions to distinct events, i.e. NATO operations, are needed, particularly focusing on cases of small states. The dependent variable of form of contributions is seemingly the least explored and may require incorporation of other theoretical arguments than utilized in existing works.

Show them the flag: status ambitions and recognition in small state coalition warfare

“…Smaller allies and partners of the United States (US) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have over the past decades made military participation in US-or NATO-led operations a priority (Oma andPetersson 2019, Pedersen 2019). Even though they did not always have an immanent interest at stake, countries such as Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium have, contrary to expectations in realist and collective action literature, offered relatively large contributions (compared to their size) and demonstrated a considerable risk willingness in operations like those in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq/ Syria (Oneal 1990, Sandler 1993, Olson and Zeckhauser 1996, Lepgold 1998, p. 90, Ringsmose 2010, p. 329, Mello 2014.…”

Why Canada Goes to War: Explaining Combat Participation in US-led Coalitions

“…The literature on international military interventions is extensive, and scholarship looking more closely at democratic participation in US-led coalition operations is burgeoning. The limited space available here, however, permits focus only on the most prominent variables identified in the literature (Tago, 2007; Oma, 2012; Mello, 2014; Haesebrouck, 2018b). 2 Collective action theory provides a starting point.…”

Alliance Value and Status Enhancement: Canada's Disproportionate Military Burden Sharing in Afghanistan

“…While these theories and the resulting variables are well established and tested, our objective in this section is not to revisit them; this overview discussion has been accomplished elsewhere (see Oma ; Zyla ). Rather, our goal is to first remind the reader that recent studies have found that the collective action model and its “exploitation hypothesis” do not explain second‐tier powers' burden sharing behavior, because some do, in fact, contribute meaningfully to NATO's provision of collective security outside its borders (Auerswald and Saideman ; Haesebrouck ).…”