Hedging their bets? The case for a European pillar in NATO

Ringsmose, Jens; Webber, Mark

doi:10.1080/14702436.2020.1823835

Cited by 20 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years, a debate over joint cooperation between the EU and NATO crystallised over several issues including post-Brexit settlement (Martill and Sus, 2018;Ewers-Peters, 2021;Cladi and Locatelli, 2020;Shea 2020;Svedsen 2019) or modus vivendi between both actors (Howorth, 2019;Duke 2019;Aggestam and Hyde-Price, 2019;Schreer, 2019;Ringsmose and Webber, 2020;Perrin, 2022). Analysis in specific areas is still quite rare, with valuable exceptions (Lété, 2019;Poptchev, 2020;Giuglietti, 2022).…”

Section: Literature Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cooperation Between EU and NATO in Response to Hybrid Threats. A Retrospective Analysis from the Institutionalist Perspective

Filipec

2023

SJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine by the Russian Federation provided new impetus for the EU and NATO to develop and later also intensify cooperation in hybrid threats. This unique process, that happens between two actors who have different histories, aims or membership structures, is analysed from the institutionalist perspective, which served as a framework to understand the development. The main aim of the article is to assess interinstitutional cooperation between the EU and NATO in the area of hybrid threats: especially in the area of capacity building, strategic communication, crisis management, counterterrorism or WMD use, and civil protection. The author concludes that both the EU and NATO successfully developed cooperation in hybrid threats and created mechanisms that enable similar perceptions of the threats and better coordination of the responses. The article serves merely as an exploratory study dedicated to the development of cooperation between the EU and NATO in this challenging area in the period between 2014 and 2022.

show abstract

Section: Literature Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cooperation Between EU and NATO in Response to Hybrid Threats. A Retrospective Analysis from the Institutionalist Perspective

Filipec

2023

SJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is, therefore, likely that in future years, the prospect of closer European security cooperation will remain firmly anchored within the boundaries of transatlantic solidarity. Rather, uncertainty about the duration of the war has revitalized the notion of a European pillar within the Alliance to be embedded in nodal defence, in increasing European defence budgets, and in contributions to missions (Ringsmose and Webber 2020).…”

Section: The Csdp's Response To Russia's Invasionmentioning

confidence: 99%

NATO and the CSDP after the Ukraine War: The End of European Strategic Autonomy?

Ratti

2023

CJERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper debates the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on the relationship between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). It argues that the invasion has changed dramatically Europe’s security landscape, carrying major implications for both organizations and their relationship. After its withdrawal from Afghanistan and deepening frictions between the US and its European allies about burden-sharing, the war instilled a new sense of purpose into NATO, placing renewed emphasis on its core functions of territorial defense and deterrence. However, the war was also a reality check for the EU, raising important questions about the future of the European security architecture, the Union’s role within it, and its relationship with NATO (hereafter also referred to as the Alliance). The aim of this article is to try to answer some of these questions, by providing an initial assessment of the impact of the war on the relationship between NATO and the CSDP, and to sketch out potential avenues for strengthening the EU’s role in transatlantic security. More specifically, the paper will try to answer the following questions: what are the implications of the conflict on the Alliance? How did the war impact on the CSDP and the Union’s aspiration to strategic autonomy? Where is EU-NATO cooperation heading as a result of the war? Will the conflict ramp up cooperation between the two organizations or will European defence efforts be channelled mostly through NATO? Will EU leaders grab the momentum created by the war to further institutional integration also in security and defence and or will the war turn into another missed opportunity to promote a more effective burden-sharing in transatlantic security?

show abstract

“…As the definition itself was primarily about external threats, the initial deduction was that it was a response to the aforementioned crises. Likewise, much of the available literature presented rationalist explanations attributing this renewed activism to external actors and conditions, considering this ambition as either an act of strategic hedging (Fiott 2018;Ringsmose & Webber 2020;Didier 2021) or bandwagoning (Cladi 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Half-Hearted or Pragmatic? Explaining EU Strategic Autonomy and the European Defence Fund through Institutional Dynamics

Kilic

2024

CEJISS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2016, the EU Global Strategy introduced the ambition of strategic autonomy, referring to the ability to protect the Union against external threats autonomously. To realise this ambition, the EU also launched various capability development initiatives, in particular, the European Defence Fund (EDF). Much of the available literature presents rationalist explanations of the EU’s development of strategic autonomy and the EDF. These studies attribute strategic autonomy ambition to external conditions and consider it as an act of strategic hedging or bandwagoning. However, the subsequent limited progress in actual capability development casts doubt on these explanations. By drawing on historical institutionalism, this study examines the EU’s current approach to strategic autonomy to see whether internal factors would offer an alternative explanation to the disjunction between the ambitions and actions. For this aim, the study scrutinises the evolution of the EDF as an instrument and the role of the Commission as an agent of change. Based on primary and secondary data, the analysis shows that even though external crises have created critical junctures that compel the EU to reorient its goals, the endogenous elements of institutional change have significantly influenced the EU’s choice of means and redistribution of resources. The findings reveal that the Commission’s ability to reinterpret the original rules and exploit gaps and ambiguities in their local enactment in a path-dependent manner has considerably affected the outcome of this change.

show abstract

Hedging their bets? The case for a European pillar in NATO

Cited by 20 publications

References 17 publications

The Cooperation Between EU and NATO in Response to Hybrid Threats. A Retrospective Analysis from the Institutionalist Perspective

The Cooperation Between EU and NATO in Response to Hybrid Threats. A Retrospective Analysis from the Institutionalist Perspective

NATO and the CSDP after the Ukraine War: The End of European Strategic Autonomy?

Half-Hearted or Pragmatic? Explaining EU Strategic Autonomy and the European Defence Fund through Institutional Dynamics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About