Understanding the Emergence of the European Security and Defence Policy

Reynolds, Christopher

doi:10.5771/9783845225333

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the EUMC's ‘terms of reference are essentially drawn from those of Nato's military committee’ (Howorth, 2007, p. 74) 9 . This Nato‐inspired structure appears not to have been the subject of significant discussion or controversy although it had to fit – sometimes uncomfortably – within existing EU structures (Reynolds, 2010).…”

Section: Institutional Overlap As a Dependent Variablementioning

confidence: 99%

Why Institutional Overlap Matters: CSDP in the European Security Architecture

Hofmann

2010

J of Common Market Studies

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The creation and continued existence of CSDP cannot be understood without reference to the institutional environment within which it is located. To explain its emergence and design, one needs to study the institutional architecture into which this additional institution emerged. Once institutional overlap exists, it becomes a crucial independent variable explaining not only the strategies that member states have at their disposal, but also the development of international institutions occupying the same policy domain as well as the impact on the policy field at large.

show abstract

Section: Institutional Overlap As a Dependent Variablementioning

confidence: 99%

Why Institutional Overlap Matters: CSDP in the European Security Architecture

Hofmann

2010

J of Common Market Studies

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The creation of the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) within the EU nicely illustrates how international bureaucrats helped muster political consensus – thereby making use of what Johnson & Urpelainen (2014: 179) label ‘design leeway’ – and how states expected that they will reduce potential transaction costs. The EU’s international staff, in particular in the Council Secretariat, was crucial in supporting an initiative taken by the British and French governments in 1998 and fostered consensus between those military powers and the neutral states within the EU that were inclined to see such an institutional body as an unprompted militarization of a European security institution (Reynolds, 2010). They introduced a more comprehensive understanding of security.…”

Section: Theorizing the Sources Of Security Cooperation Within Reosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional authority and security cooperation within regional economic organizations

Haftel

Hofmann

2017

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proliferation of regional economic organizations (REOs) is a prominent feature of the contemporary international environment. Many of these organizations aspire to promote regional peace and stability. Some strive to promote these goals only through economic cooperation, while others have expanded their mandate to include mechanisms that address security concerns more directly. A glance at the security components of such organizations indicates that their purpose and design are very diverse. This article sheds light on the sources of this poorly understood phenomenon. Specifically, it argues that organizations that enjoy greater delegated authority are in a better position to expand their mandate into the security realm and to have more far-reaching agreements in this issue area. It then develops a metric that gauges the degree of security cooperation within REOs and presents a new dataset of numerous organizations on this institutional aspect. Employing this dataset in a rigorous statistical analysis and controlling for a host of alternative explanations, it demonstrates that, indeed, REOs with greater delegated authority develop deeper security cooperation.

show abstract

“…Anecdotal evidence from the personal environment of the EU's first High Representative (at the time, double-hatted as Secretary General of the Council of the EU), Javier Solana, has suggested that the PSC was originally modelled on its more dated NATO counterpart, which may indeed explain some of the parallels between them: Solana had formerly served as Secretary General of NATO, so when ESDP/CSDP structures had to be set up within a short time frame, there has likely been plenty of incentive for him to draw on the modus operandi and organisational culture he had worked in previously. Therefore, together, the NAC and the PSC, including the advisory bodies around them, indeed produce a seemingly neat case of institutional isomorphism ('copying') or mimesis (imitation of an established model) (Reynolds 2010;Juncos 2007) where the design of one, the PSC, was clearly informed by previous experiences with a similar structure, the NAC. Some advanced a historical institutionalist approach to capture the dynamic between the PSC and the NAC, placing more emphasis on the structural factors but essentially also pointing at the way in which the institutional design of one had influenced the other (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some advanced a historical institutionalist approach to capture the dynamic between the PSC and the NAC, placing more emphasis on the structural factors but essentially also pointing at the way in which the institutional design of one had influenced the other (e.g. Reynolds 2010). Others have highlighted the role of epistemic communities in shaping the institutional environment of each the NAC and the PSC and the two in comparison with each other (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost: a Grounded Theory approach to the comparative study of decision-making in the NAC and PSC

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of the relationship between the EU and NATO often focus on the limitations of cooperation, be it at the political or operational levels. However, little is known about the functioning of the political institutional linkages between the EU and NATO. This article therefore studies the main decision-making bodies of the two organisations at the political, ambassadorial level, namely the Political Security Committee (PSC) of the EU and the North Atlantic Council (NAC) in NATO, as well as their joint meetings. The article employs an inductive Grounded Theory approach, drawing on open-ended interviews with PSC and NAC ambassadors, which reveal direct insights from the objects of analysis. The findings emphasise the impact of both structural and more agency-related categories on decision-making in these three fora. The article thus addresses both the paucity of study on these bodies more broadly and the complete lacuna on joint PSC-NAC meetings specifically, warranting the inductive approach this article endorses.

show abstract

Understanding the Emergence of the European Security and Defence Policy

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Why Institutional Overlap Matters: CSDP in the European Security Architecture

Why Institutional Overlap Matters: CSDP in the European Security Architecture

Institutional authority and security cooperation within regional economic organizations

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost: a Grounded Theory approach to the comparative study of decision-making in the NAC and PSC

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About