Towards a Strategic Partnership? The US and Russian Response to the European                 Security and Defence Policy

Giegerich, Bastian; Pushkina, Darya; Mount, Adam

doi:10.1177/0967010606069181

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, several of these studies have focused specifically on the contributions of individual major powers to the CSDP, therefore using the CSDP as their organising compass (e.g. Dyson, 2016: Section 3; Giegerich, 2006; 2008; Gross, 2011). Meanwhile, in such comparative studies, many lesser European powers are often absent altogether, such as Albania, Ireland or Slovakia, just to name a few.…”

Section: A Glaring Imbalance: the Literature On The Common Security Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Upside down: Reframing European Defence Studies

Meijer¹,

Wyss²

2018

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the end of the Cold War, the study of European defence has been dominated by a 'CSDP-centric' approach, while largely neglecting the comparative analysis of national defence policies. This article makes the case for turning the dominant research prism of European defence studies upside down by returning the analytical precedence to the national level. This approach privileges the comparative analysis of national defence policies and armed forces, before focusing on the trans-/supra-national level. The case for this conceptual turn is made in three steps. First, it addresses the different historical stages in European defence integration and the transformation of national armed forces in Europe. Second, it questions the predominance of CSDP in the scholarly literature on European defence. Finally, it seeks to demonstrate the fruitfulness of such a demarche by empirically substantiating common patterns and intra-European divergences in the evolution of national defence policies and armed forces since the end of the Cold War. In conclusion, the article suggests avenues for research focused on European national defence policies and armed forces.

show abstract

Section: A Glaring Imbalance: the Literature On The Common Security Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Upside down: Reframing European Defence Studies

Meijer¹,

Wyss²

2018

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This made the US hostile towards CSDP. What is more, the EU launched its first French-sponsored autonomous military operation in the Congo (JuneSeptember 2003), which was viewed with great suspicion by the US (Giegerich et al 2006).…”

Section: Military Operation Althea In Bosnia-herzegovinamentioning

confidence: 99%

Agenda-setting in the Common Security and Defence Policy: An institutionalist perspective

Dijkstra¹

2012

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The European Union has launched an impressive number of crisis management missions since its Common Security and Defence Policy became operational in 2003. This article analyses the agenda-setting phase of these civilian and military operations in order to explain why the EU has sent troops, policemen, judges, prosecutors and monitors across three continents. It presents an institutionalist perspective and argues that the former High Representative Javier Solana and his officials have been instrumental in putting various operations on the agenda. They have employed deliberate agenda-setting strategies, such as venue-shopping, conflict expansion and issue framing, to further their bureaucratic interest of launching new missions. Solana and his officials had the ability to affect the agenda-setting process due to their pivotal position in policy-making. This gave them with superior information on the state-of-play, an early mover advantage as well as strong international networks. The article provides empirical evidence from the crisis management missions in Aceh, Bosnia, Chad and Kosovo. It concludes with the changes to the Common Security and Defence Policy after the Treaty of Lisbon.

show abstract

“…The United States was not against the takeover, but it was wary of autonomous EU operations (e.g. Operation Artemis, Giegerich et al 2006). As a result of the transatlantic tensions over Iraq, it therefore blocked the handover for six months (interviews with national officials 2009).…”

Section: Military and Civilian Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of EU officials in European Security and Defence

Dijkstra

2012

European Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

European Union (EU) foreign policy has long been considered the domaine réservé of the member states. This article challenges such conventional state-centered wisdom by analyzing the influence of the Brussels-based EU officials in the Common Security and Defence Policy. Using four case studies and data from 105 semi-structured interviews, it shows that EU officials are most influential in the agenda-setting phase and more influential in civilian than in military operations. Their prominence in agenda-setting can be explained by their central position in the policy process. This allows them to get early involved in the operations. The absence of strong control mechanisms and doctrine in civilian crisis management gives them opportunities to affect civilian missions. Finally, EU officials direct civilian operations from Brussels, whereas the command of military operations is with the member states and NATO.

show abstract

Towards a Strategic Partnership? The US and Russian Response to the European Security and Defence Policy

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

Upside down: Reframing European Defence Studies

Upside down: Reframing European Defence Studies

Agenda-setting in the Common Security and Defence Policy: An institutionalist perspective

The influence of EU officials in European Security and Defence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About