Transatlantic relations in times of uncertainty: crises and EU-US relations

Riddervold, Marianne; Newsome, Akasemi

doi:10.1080/07036337.2018.1488839

Cited by 47 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although perhaps not a superpower, the EU is without doubt more autonomous and indeed a stronger foreign and security player today than ever before, and it expresses a clear ambition of further strengthening its strategic autonomy. " 98 In the words of Angela Merkel, "The era in which we could fully rely on others is over to some extent. .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…97 A lack of EU institutions in defense cooperation did not hinder informal cooperation but rather fueled it. 98 Informal efforts continued throughout the 1990s through vehicles such as WEAG (which replaced the IEPG in 1992) and the 1990 European Defence Industrial Group, which was "closely linked to the work within IEPG. " 99 The WEAG agenda included a proposal for the creation of formal EU defense cooperation, including centralized defense armaments and technology agencies.…”

Section: Failure Of the Edc To 21st Century Defense Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

European-Russian Power Relations in Turbulent Times

Cross¹,

Karolewski²

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After many years of gradually closer ties between Russia and the European Union (EU), this relationship has taken a turn for the worst, signaling possibly the darkest era in security on the continent since the end of the Cold War. Indeed, at the beginning of the 21st century, it was almost taken for granted that Russia, under Vladimir Putin's leadership, was gradually moving closer to the West and valued its relationship to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Many observers pointed to Russia's strategic partnership with the West, 1 and there was even talk of Russia's future possible membership in NATO, or even the EU. However, this trajectory began a sharp slide backward as a result of the Russo-Georgian War in 2008, with major implications for Europe, the US, and even the liberal world order at large. 2 Indeed, the international system today is transforming. The liberal world order is coming under threat on various fronts with the rise and growth of nondemocratic states, violent and criminal nonstate actors, asymmetric conflict, and cyber war, among other things. 3 What is perhaps most surprising, as John Ikenberry points out, is that the biggest threat to the liberal world order actually stems from the most powerful "hostile revisionist power . . . it has begun to sabotage the order it created . . . it sits in the Oval Office, the beating heart of the free world. " 4 With this climate of uncertainty and insecurity, many states are reverting to less cooperative forms of interaction in the international system, oftentimes resulting in crisis. The Russia-EU relationship is one of the central dynamics behind the emergence of this less stable system. For the EU, increasing Russian aggression and disregard for international law through its encroachments

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Failure Of the Edc To 21st Century Defense Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

European-Russian Power Relations in Turbulent Times

Cross¹,

Karolewski²

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, these countries came to realize and understand that the social context had changed and a possible Kantian culture is possible. By the end of the Cold War, the "liberal international order" (Riddervold and Newsome, 2018) was established by the fall of the Soviet Union. The early 1990s presented the international society, and particularly the European communities with new challenges and opportunities.…”

Section: Theoretical and Methodological Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of EU’s ‘self – presentation’: 1992-2016

Khalil

2019

REPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the ideological discourse in the EU's self-presentation, which will provide a new standpoint for scholars interested in analyzing the EU's foreign policy. Design/methodology/approach To understand how the EU perceives itself, the research investigates the Preamble of the Treaty of the European Union (Maastricht Treaty 1992) and its consolidated versions of 1997, 2002, 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2016. Investigation of the consolidated versions of the Maastricht treaty is important to understand how the Union came to develop the image of the Self throughout time and how the international context had affected EU’s self-image. The preambles are analyzed using the socio-cognitive approach to critical discourse analysis to examine the ideological discourse of self-presentation. Findings It can be concluded that the discourse used in the preamble reflects an ideological discourse used by the EU to present itself in positive ways. Such an ideological discourse emphasizes the differentiation between the in-group and out-group identification. Thus, it can suggest some implications that the EU holds a negative portray of the “Other” who do not hold the same characteristics, activities, goals, norms and values. Originality/value Understanding the possibility of such an ideological discourse can help researchers to adopt a new standpoint to analyze the EU’s foreign policy, which can help in providing new perspective for academic scholarly work.

show abstract

“…Alt dette er tegn på at USA og EU sakte glir fra hverandre (Howorth, 2018;Riddervold & Newsome, 2018). Stadig negative utfall fra avtroppende president Donald J. Trumps side mot de europeiske allierte, som at Nato er overflødig, at brexit bidrar til at Storbritannia tar tilbake kontrollen fra EU og at Tyskland er gratispassasjer på det euroatlantiske samarbeidet, synes å bekrefte dette.…”

Section: Innledningunclassified

Hvorfor så ambivalent? USAs politikk overfor EUs forsvarsambisjoner

Knutsen

Tvetbråten²

2021

Internasjonal Politikk

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artikkelen diskuterer forholdet mellom den europeiske integrasjonsprosessen og det atlantiske samarbeidet under USAs ledelse. Problemstillingen artikkelen besvarer er hvilke tilnærminger Trump-administrasjonen har hatt til EUs sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitikk, og hvordan vi kan forklare denne tilnærmingen. I særlig grad dreier dette seg om balansegangen mellom europeisk strategisk autonomi på den ene siden, og amerikansk lederskap i Nato på den andre. Dette forholdet må forstås i lys av spørsmålet om lederskap i euroatlantisk sikkerhetspolitikk, noe som har vært et gjennomgangstema i europeisk integrasjon siden starten på 1950-tallet. Med en organisasjonsteoretisk tilnærming søker artikkelen å forklare hvorfor USA inntar et mer instrumentelt perspektiv overfor EU. Et slikt perspektiv innebærer at USA prioriterer ressurser til de områdene i verden der USA står overfor de største sikkerhetspolitiske utfordringene. For å forklare denne utviklingen diskuterer artikkelen USAs holdninger til EUs nyere forsvarsinitiativer og supermaktens ambivalens i forhold til disse. I møte med den nye Biden-administrasjonen blir det derfor viktig å avklare grunnlaget for det transatlantiske sikkerhetsfellesskapet. Et slikt fellesskap dreier seg ikke bare om felles interesser, men også om delte normer og verdier om hvordan en skal håndtere felles sikkerhetsutfordringer. Abstract in English:Why So Ambivalent? US Policies Towards the EU’s Defence AmbitionsThe article discusses the relationship between the European integration process and Atlantic cooperation under US leadership. The research question the article answers is what kind of approaches the Trump Administration has had towards the EU’s security and defence policies and how we can explain these approaches. More precisely, the article discusses the balances between European strategic autonomy on the one hand and American leadership in NATO on the other. This has all to do with the question of leadership in Euro-Atlantic security politics, which has been an enduring question ever since the European integrations process was initiated during the 1950’s. By utilising an organisation theoretical approach, the article seeks to explain why the US approaches the EU from an instrumental point of view. Such a perspective implies that the US priorities resources to those areas in the world where the US faces its greatest challenges. To explain this development the article discusses the US’ attitudes towards the EU’s defence package and the superpower’s ambivalence towards it. When assessing the new Biden Administration, it therefore becomes important to explain the foundation for the transatlantic security community. Such a community is not about common interests only, but also about shared norms and values on how to handle common security challenges.

show abstract

Transatlantic relations in times of uncertainty: crises and EU-US relations

Cited by 47 publications

References 40 publications

European-Russian Power Relations in Turbulent Times

European-Russian Power Relations in Turbulent Times

The evolution of EU’s ‘self – presentation’: 1992-2016

Hvorfor så ambivalent? USAs politikk overfor EUs forsvarsambisjoner

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About