DOCSLIB.ORG

The Development of the European Security and Defence Policy – an Assessment of Preferences, Bargains and Outcomes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Development of the European Security and Defence Policy – an Assessment of Preferences, Bargains and Outcomes The Development of the European Security and Defence Policy – An Assessment of Preferences, Bargains and Outcomes PÅL JONSON FOI is an assignment-based authority under the Ministry of Defence. The core activities are research, method and technology develop- ment, as well as studies for the use of defence and security. The organization employs around 1350 people of whom around 950 are researchers. This makes FOI the largest research institute in Sweden. FOI provides its customers with leading expertise in a large number of fields such as security-policy studies and analyses in defence and security, assessment of different types of threats, systems for control and management of crises, protection against and management of hazardous substances, IT-security an the potential of new sensors. FOI Swedish Defence Research Agency Phone: +46 8 555 030 00 www.foi.se FOI-R--1967--SE Scientific report Defence Analysis Defence Analysis Fax: +46 8 555 031 00 ISSN 1650-1942 February 2006 SE-164 90 Stockholm Pål Jonson The Development of the European Security and Defence Policy – An Assessment of Preferences, Bargains and Outcomes Issuing organization Report number, ISRN Report type FOI – Swedish Defence Research Agency FOI-R--1967--SE Scientific report Defence Analysis Research area code SE-164 90 Stockholm 1. Security, safety and vulnerability analyses Month year Project no. February 2006 A 1103 Sub area code 11 Policy Support to the Government (Defence) Sub area code 2 Author/s (editor/s) Project manager Pål Jonson Approved by Jan-Erik Rendahl Sponsoring agency FOI Scientifically and technically responsible Prof. Anthony Forster and Dr Klaus Goetz Report title The Development of the European Security and Defence Policy – An Assessment of Preferences, Bargains and Outcomes Abstract This study assesses the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) between 1998 and 2001. It argues that the key fault-lines of the negotiation process for the ESDP rested on three core issues. Firstly, the dichotomy between Atlanticist and Europeanist preferences; secondly, the shifting preferences for the balance between military and civilian crisis management tools and thirdly (to a lesser extent) the shifting preferences between intergovernmental and federal approaches to the implementation of the ESDP. The study, furthermore, test the validity of the theoretical framework Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI) in reference to the ESDP process. It cast doubts on LI’s core assumptions of ‘unitary actor behaviour’ and ‘rationality’ since they underestimates factors such as historical points of reference, norms and values. The empirical findings indicate that these factors seem decisively, albeit not exclusively, have influenced the preferences in the field of European security and defence co-operation. Keywords European Union, NATO, European Security and Defence Policy, Integration, Negotiations, Liberal Intergovernmentalism. Further bibliographic information Language English ISSN 1650-1942 Pages 275 p. Price acc. to pricelist 2 Utgivare Rapportnummer, ISRN Klassificering FOI - Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut FOI-R--1967--SE Vetenskaplig rapport Försvarsanalys Forskningsområde 164 90 Stockholm 1. Analys av säkerhet och sårbarhet Månad, år Projektnummer Februari 2006 A 1103 Delområde 11 Forskning för regeringens behov Delområde 2 Författare/redaktör Projektledare Pål Jonson Godkänd av Jan-Erik Rendahl Uppdragsgivare/kundbeteckning FOI Tekniskt och/eller vetenskapligt ansvarig Anthony Forester och Klaus Goetz Rapportens titel The Development of the European Security and Defence Policy – An Assessment of Preferences, Bargains and Outcomes Sammanfattning Studien analyserar utvecklingen av den europeiska säkerhets och försvarspolitiken (EFSP) mellan 1998 och 2001. Konfliktytorna i förhandlingarna om EFSP kretsade kring i allt väsentligt kring tre kärnfrågor. För det första skiljelinjerna mellan atlantistiska och Europacentrerade preferenser; för det andra avvägningen i balansen mellan militära och civila krishanteringsinstrument; för det tredje stödjet för mellanstatliga respektive överstatliga beslutsfattningsstrukturer för EFSP. Studien prövar även det teoretiska ramverket Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI) förmåga att beskriva förhandlingsprocessen för EFSP. Framförallt ifrågasätter studien validiteten i LI grundantaganden unitary actor behaviour och rationality. De empiriska analyserna pekar på att dessa faktorer underskattar den vikt som historiska referenspunkter, normer och värderingar tenderar att spela när medlemsstaterna utvecklar sina preferenser för säkerhets och försvarspolitiskt samarbete. Nyckelord Europeiska unionen, NATO, europeisk säkerhets och försvarspolitik, integration, förhandlingar, Liberal Intergovernmentalism. Övriga bibliografiska uppgifter Språk Engelska ISSN 1650-1942 Antal sidor: 275 s. Distribution enligt missiv Pris: Enligt prislista 3 Cover picture: © www.Scanpix.se 4 ABSTRACT This study assesses the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) from an empirical and theoretical perspective. The empirical aim of this study is to analyse and trace the evolution of the ESDP process from its emergence in 1998 to the declaration of its partial operational readiness in December 2001. More specifically, the objective is to provide an understanding of the main characteristics of the process and identify the sources of diverging preferences between the state governments within the negotiation process for the ESDP. The study argues that the key fault-lines of the negotiation process for the ESDP rested on three core issues. Firstly, the dichotomy between Atlanticist and Europeanist preferences; secondly, the shifting preferences for the balance between military and civilian crisis management tools and thirdly (to a lesser extent) the shifting preferences between intergovernmental and federal approaches to the implementation of the ESDP. Subsequently, the study tests if the hypotheses of the theoretical framework ‘Liberal Intergovernmentalism’ can accurately explain how the state governments formulated their preferences and bargained during the ESDP negotiations and if the outcome of the negotiations corresponded to Liberal Intergovernmentalism’s prediction in this regard. Secondly, the study, on a more profound basis, elaborates on the core assumptions of ‘unitary actor behaviour’ and ‘rationality’ that are at the heart of Liberal Intergovernmentalism. It concludes by providing some factors that point to the explanatory limits of these assumptions since they ignore or pay minimum attention to aspects, such as historical points of reference, norms and values, which occasionally seem to decisively, albeit not exclusively, have influenced the preferences in the field of security and defence co-operation. The conclusion is drawn that the dynamics for the ESDP process is too multifaceted to be explained by the narrow national interest based rational choice paradigm of Liberal Intergovernmentalism. 1 Contents CONTENTS ABSTRACT 1 CONTENTS 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6 ABBREVIATIONS 8 CHAPTER ONE 11 1. INTRODUCTION 11 Aims and Questions of the Study 12 Key Definitions 14 Relevance 15 Methodology and Structure 21 Sources 24 Chapter Outlines 26 CHAPTER TWO 28 2. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON EUROPEAN INTEGRATION 28 Introduction 28 Neorealism 29 International Liberalism 30 International Relations Theories in Reference to European Integration 31 European Integration Theories 32 Neofunctionalism 33 Intergovernmentalism 35 New Theoretical Approaches 37 Core Assumptions and Key Hypotheses of Liberal Intergovernmentalism 42 2 Contents Core Assumptions of LI 43 Rational Unitary Actor Behaviour 43 State-Centrism 44 Structure and Key Hypotheses of LI 45 Preference Formation 46 The Interstate Bargaining Process 47 The Institutional Choice Process 50 Criticism of LI 54 CHAPTER THREE 60 3. THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS: THE EVOLUTION OF THE ESDP - PRESIDENCY BY PRESIDENCY 60 Introduction 60 Institutional Ramifications 62 The Austrian Presidency, July-December 1998 64 The First Informal EU Defence Ministers’ Meeting 64 The St Malo Summit 66 The European Council Summit in Vienna 68 The German Presidency, January-June 1999 71 The Eltville Meeting 72 Getting the Non-Aligned Onboard 76 The Kosovo Operation 78 The Washington Summit 79 The EU Council Summit in Cologne 79 The Finnish Presidency, June-December 1999 84 The WEU’s Audit of Assets and Capabilities 86 The Franco-British Summit in London 87 Dual Roles for the High Representative 88 The European Council Summit in Helsinki 88 The Portuguese Presidency, January- June 2000 96 The Toolbox and Food for Thought Papers 97 Developing the Civilian Dimension 102 The European Council Summit in Feria 104 The French Presidency, July-December 2000 109 First Ever PSC-NAC Meeting 111 The Capabilities Commitment Conference 112 Impetus From the European Parliament 116 The European Council Summit in Nice 116 The Swedish Presidency, January-June 2001 122 Advancing Civilian Crisis Management 123 The FYROM Crisis 124 3 Contents Further Impetus for Military Crisis Management 125 European Council Summit in Göteborg 126 The Belgian Presidency, July-December 2001 129 The Impact of 11 September 2001 130 The EU Action Plan 131 11 September 2001 and the ESDP Process 132 European Capability Action Plan 134 The European Council Summit in Laeken 134 Conclusions 137 CHAPTER FOUR 148 4. PREFERENCES WITHIN THE ESDP PROCESS 148 Introduction 148 The Essence of the Preferences 151 The United Kingdom’s Main Positions on the ESDP
Load more

Recommended publications
  • John J. Mearsheimer: an Offensive Realist Between Geopolitics and Power
    John J. Mearsheimer: an offensive realist between geopolitics and power Peter Toft Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Østerfarimagsgade 5, DK 1019 Copenhagen K, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected] With a number of controversial publications behind him and not least his book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, John J. Mearsheimer has firmly established himself as one of the leading contributors to the realist tradition in the study of international relations since Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics. Mearsheimer’s main innovation is his theory of ‘offensive realism’ that seeks to re-formulate Kenneth Waltz’s structural realist theory to explain from a struc- tural point of departure the sheer amount of international aggression, which may be hard to reconcile with Waltz’s more defensive realism. In this article, I focus on whether Mearsheimer succeeds in this endeavour. I argue that, despite certain weaknesses, Mearsheimer’s theoretical and empirical work represents an important addition to Waltz’s theory. Mearsheimer’s workis remarkablyclear and consistent and provides compelling answers to why, tragically, aggressive state strategies are a rational answer to life in the international system. Furthermore, Mearsheimer makes important additions to structural alliance theory and offers new important insights into the role of power and geography in world politics. Journal of International Relations and Development (2005) 8, 381–408. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800065 Keywords: great power politics; international security; John J. Mearsheimer; offensive realism; realism; security studies Introduction Dangerous security competition will inevitably re-emerge in post-Cold War Europe and Asia.1 International institutions cannot produce peace.
    [Show full text]
  • The Polysemy of Privacy
    Alabama Law Scholarly Commons Articles Faculty Scholarship 2013 The Polysemy of Privacy Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr. University of Alabama - School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_articles Recommended Citation Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr., The Polysemy of Privacy, 88 Ind. L.J. 881 (2013). Available at: https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_articles/224 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Alabama Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Alabama Law Scholarly Commons. The Polysemy of Privacy RONALD J. KROTOSZYNSKI, JR. "The Polysemy of Privacy " considers the highly protean nature of the concept of "privacy," which extends to myriad disparate legal interests, including nondisclosure, generalized autonomy interests, and even human dignity. For a concept of such central importance to many systems of protectingfundamental rights, its precise contours are surprisingly ill defined This lack of determinate meaning is not limited to the concept of privacy in the United States; virtually all legal systems that utilize privacy (or its first cousin, "dignity") have difficulty reducing the concept into specific, carefully delineated legal interests. In some respects, privacy means everything-and nothing-at the same time. Moreover, even in those contexts where one can identify privacy at a relatively choate, rather than highly abstract, level of jurisprudentialanalysis, the right of privacy often comes into direct conflict with other fundamental rights. For example, commitments to freedom of speech and to a free press often conflict with privacy interests; these conflicts, in turn, force courts to secure one interest only at the price of undermining another.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions
    Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Martin, Lisa L., and Beth A. Simmons. 1998. Theories and empirical studies of international institutions. International Organization 52(4): 729-757. Published Version http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002081898550734 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3382862 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Theoriesand EmpiricalStudies of International Institutions Lisa L.Martin and Beth A.Simmons Therole of internationalinstitutions has beencentral to thestudy of worldpolitics at leastsince the conclusion of WorldW ar II. Muchof thisresearch was, andcontinues tobe, pioneered in the pages of InternationalOrganization .Inthis article we take stockof pastwork on internationalinstitutions, trace the evolution of majorthemes inscholarship over time, and highlight areas for productivenew research. Our cen- tralargument is that research should increasingly turn to thequestion of howinstitu- tionsmatter in shaping the behavior of importantactors in world politics. New re- searchefforts shouldemphasize observable implications of alternative theories of institutions.W eadvocateapproaching international institutions as boththe object of strategicchoice and a constrainton actors’ behavior, an ideathat is familiarto schol- ars ofdomestic institutions but has been neglected in much of the debate between realistand institutionalist scholars of internationalrelations. Thearticle is organized into three major sections. The rst sectionprovides an analyticalreview of the development of studies of international institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Debate on American Hegemony
    The USS Vandegrift. (Credit: Expert Comment meunierd/Bigstockphoto.com) The debate on American hegemony Copyright © 2019 by Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute The right of Brian C. Schmidt to be identified as the author of this publication is hereby asserted. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views and opinions of the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute, its co-founders, or its staff members. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, please write to the publisher: Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute gGmbH Französische Straße 23 10117 Berlin Germany +49 30 209677900 [email protected] 1 Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute The debate on American hegemony Brian C. Schmidt Ian Clark is correct when he writes that “the present state of the ‘hegemony debate’ is, to say the least, confusing” (Clark, 2009, p.24). The aim of this paper is to provide some conceptual and theoretical clarity on the diverse means by which the field of International Relations (IR) understands the concept of hegemony. A secondary aim is to consider what these different theoretical accounts of hegemony have to say about the debate on American hegemony. After reviewing several different definitions of hegemony, I find that the concept embodies two main ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Neo-Realism and State Power
    Prof. Andreas Bieler The Anarchy Problematique and Sovereignty: Neo-Realism and State Power ‘Any military commander, who is honest with himself, or with those he speaks to, will admit that he has made mistakes in the application of military power. He has killed people, unnecessarily, his own troops or other troops, through mistakes, through errors of judgement, a 100, or 1000, or tens of 1000, may be even 100000, but he has not destroyed nations’ (Robert S. McNamara in The Fog of War). This lecture deals with one of the dominant approaches in International Relations theory: (neo-) realism. The lecture is divided into three parts. Part I will focus on the historical emergence and key concepts of (neo-) realism. Part II will look at the empirical application of neo-realism by John Mearsheimer to European security after the Cold War, before Part III presents a range of theoretical criticisms of (neo-) realism. Most importantly, the latter will make the point that neo-realism is unable to explain structural change in world order. 1. (Neo-) Realism: Historically, realism emerged in response to liberal approaches. When the latter’s hope for a peaceful international order based on co-operation between democratic states organized through the League of Nations fell apart as a result of the rise of aggressive fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, the international situation characterized by war and the 1 struggle for survival was ripe for a new theoretical approach. The two key interventions were The Twenty Years’ Crisis by E.H. Carr in 1939 and Politics among Nations by Hans Morgenthau in 1948.
    [Show full text]
  • Oprah Winfrey (B 1954) Is an American Talk Show Host, She Was Born in Baghdad and Came to the United States at 19
    The twenty-first century has been called the Century of Women, highlighting THE the critical role of women in creating a peaceful future. • Throughout history, women have worked tirelessly—often behind the scenes— for the peace and safety of their families and their CENTURY communities. Today women are taking leading roles in the quest for global security and equal rights. • The continuing empowerment of women throughout the world is a key to solving the world’s most pressing issues, ranging from of the abolishment of nuclear weapons to poverty and hunger. • This exhibit features the contributions of a few women. Untold millions more—both prominent and little known—have WOMEN dedicated themselves to a fair and peaceful future. WOMEN and the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE he Nobel Peace Prize has become the world’s most prestigious prize for the preservation Tof peace. Since 1901 it has been awarded to individuals and organizations committed to peace, human rights and humanitarian causes. Ninety-seven individuals and 20 organizations had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by 2010. Nine of these women have received the award since 1976 when Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan won for their roles in the peace movement in Northern Ireland. Female Nobel Peace Prize Laureates 1905 – Bertha von Suttner 1931 – Jane Addams 1946 – Emily Greene Balch 1976 – Betty Williams 1976 – Mairead Corrigan 1979 – Mother Teresa 1982 – Alva Myrdal 1991 – Aung San Suu Kyi 1992 – Rigoberta Menchú Tum 1997 – Jody Williams 2003 – Shirin Ebadi 2004 – Wangari Maathai e are deeply, passionately dedicated to Wthe cause of nonviolence, to the force of “ truth and love, to soul-force.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geostrategic Debate in the United States of America: the Place of Eurasia, the Western Hemisphere, and Mexico
    DOI 1022491/1809-3191.v24n2.p395-418 THE GEOSTRATEGIC DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THE PLACE OF EURASIA, THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, AND MEXICO Raphael Padula1 ABSTRACT The main objective of this study is to present the geostrategic debate on the power projection of the USA, from the perspective of its most relevant authors: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Samuel Huntington and Robert Kaplan. The argument is that such authors, although following premises of the Realistic School of International Relations, have shown different positions regarding the place of Eurasia and the Western Hemisphere, and particularly of Mexico, in the security and in the geostrategic actions of the United States of America. The study is based on books and original articles by the authors, and very marginally on interviews and secondary texts about the authors. Keywords: United States of America. Geopolitics. Security. 1 Doutor. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (COPPE - UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro - RJ, Brasil. E-mail: [email protected] R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 24, n. 2, p. 395-418. maio/agosto. 2018. 396 THE GEOSTRATEGIC DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTRODUCTION The geographic dimension has a central role in the strategic-related and foreign policy formulation of the United States of America. What would be the fundamental relations for the USA in terms of geographic axis? Would it be the North-South axis, which points to the priority of US relations with the Western Hemisphere (America)? The main objective of this study is to present the geostrategic debate on the power projection of the USA, from the perspective of its most relevant authors: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Samuel Huntington and Robert Kaplan.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of Hegemony in International Relations: Ontology and Social
    Hegemony and international relations Article (Accepted Version) Antoniades, Andreas (2018) Hegemony and international relations. International Politics, 55 (5). pp. 595-611. ISSN 1384-5748 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/70470/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk A VERSION OF THIS PAPER IS FORTCOMING IN THE JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL POLITICS HEGEMONY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Andreas Antoniades Senior Lecturer in Global Political Economy Department of International Relations University of Sussex Brighton BN1 9SN, UK Tel: +44 (0)1273 872875 Email: [email protected] Abstract The paper interrogates the current state-of-the-art in hegemony analysis in International Relations (IR).
    [Show full text]
  • Public Discourse in Contemporary Germany
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 47 Issue 3 Article 3 1997 Public Discourse in Contemporary Germany Edward J. Eberle Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Edward J. Eberle, Public Discourse in Contemporary Germany, 47 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 797 (1997) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol47/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW VOLUME 47 SPRING 1997 NUMBER 3 ARTICLES PUBLIC DISCOURSE IN CONTEMPORARY GERMANY Edward J. Eberle I. HISTORY OF THE GERMAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER AND ITS PROTECTION OF EXPRESSION ................ II. THE NATURE AND HISTORY OF GERMAN PUBLIC DISCOURSE ........................ ..... 804 A. The Nature of German Public Discourse . ..... 804 B. Historical Evolution of German Law ..... ..... 807 t Associate Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law (BA. Co- lumbia 1978; J.D. Northwestern 1982). Copyright 1996, by Edward J. Eberle. All rights reserved. I would like to thank Professors David Currie of the University of Chicago, Donald Kommers of the University of Notre Dame, and Bodo Pieroth of Westfalische Wilhelms- University, MOnster, Germany, for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article. I would also like to thank Professor Bernhard Grossfeld of Westfhlische Wilhelms-Univer- sity, Milnster, Germany, who graciously arranged my visit at the University's Institute on International Business Law and Comparative Law in the Summer of 1995 and has always been a source of inspiration.
    [Show full text]
  • A Flawed Framework Charles L. Glaser Why the Liberal International Order Concept Is Misguided
    A Flawed Framework A Flawed Framework Charles L. Glaser Why the Liberal International Order Concept Is Misguided Policymakers and scholars in the United States worried about growing threats to the Western in- ternational order well before President Donald Trump began rhetorically attacking U.S. allies and challenging the international trading system.1 These threats included the 2007–08 ªnancial crisis and the negative economic im- pacts of globalization. Recently, the focus has shifted sharply to the return of major power competition. As the United States’ 2018 National Defense Strategy notes: “We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by de- cline in the long-standing rules-based international order...Inter-state strate- gic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.”2 Perceived threats have generated a search for policies capable of preserving the international order. As a bipartisan group of former govern- Charles L. Glaser is a professor in the Elliott School of International Affairs and the Department of Political Science at George Washington University. He directs the Elliott School’s Institute for Security and Conºict Studies. For helpful comments on earlier versions of this article, the author thanks Michael Barnett, Stephen Brooks, Austin Carson, Jonathan Caverley, Jeff Colgan, Rush Doshi, Alexander Downes, Henry Farrell, Martha Finnemore, James Goldgeier, Avery Goldstein, Lloyd Gruber, Michael Joseph, Alexander Kirss, Alexander Lennon, Yonatan Lupu, Julia Macdonald, Michael Mazaar, John Mearsheimer, Robert Powell, Miranda Priebe, Joshua Itzkowitz Shifrinson, Caitlin Talmadge, William Wohlforth, the members of the Institute for Security and Conºict Studies–Minerva work- ing group on international orders, and the anonymous reviewers.
    [Show full text]
  • Formulating a Us Grand Strategy for China
    Managing Uncertainty: Formulating a U.S. Grand Strategy for China 233 12 MANAGING UNCERTAINTY: FORMULATING A U.S. GRAND STRATEGY FOR CHINA Christopher E. Schildt This paper posits that in the face of uncertainty over China’s rise to power, traditional realist and liberal theories of international relations are impractical for formulating U.S. policy. Instead, this paper outlines a new way of thinking about international order and then uses a game theory model to analyze U.S.-Sino relations in light of this new framework. The model fi nds that a mixed strategy equilibrium exists whereby the United States pursues both competitive and cooperative policies toward China. This U.S. policy of “guarded engagement” could induce Beijing to cooperate but leaves the United States prepared for confl ict if it does not. INTRODUCTION China’s rising power presents a serious challenge to the international relations discipline. In both Washington and Beijing, policy makers are watchful of the other nation’s policies and are looking to international relations scholars for guidance. The advice an academic can offer differs drastically, however, based on the school of thought to which one belongs. The right advice could peacefully integrate China into the international community; the wrong advice could lead to war. On one hand, realists generally believe that states are the principal actors in international relations and that they exist in anarchy, or the absence of a central authority able to impose order on the system (Lynn-Jones and Miller 1995). States therefore tend to utilize the threat or use of force to Christopher E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Military History Museum in Dresden: Between Forum and Temple Author(S): Cristian Cercel Source: History and Memory, Vol. 30, No
    The Military History Museum in Dresden: Between Forum and Temple Author(s): Cristian Cercel Source: History and Memory, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 2018), pp. 3-39 Published by: Indiana University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/histmemo.30.1.02 Accessed: 19-06-2018 08:16 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History and Memory This content downloaded from 78.48.172.3 on Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:16:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms The Military History Museum in Dresden Between Forum and Temple CRISTIAN CERCEL This article analyzes the Military History Museum (MHM) in Dresden against the backdrop of recent theoretical elaborations on agonistic memory, as opposed to the cosmopolitan and antagonistic modes of remembering. It argues that the MHM attempts to combine two functions of the museum: the museum as forum and the museum as temple. By examining the concept underpinning the reor- ganization of the permanent exhibition of the MHM, and by bringing examples from both the permanent and temporary exhibitions, the article shows that the discourse of the MHM presents some relevant compatibilities with the principles of agonistic memory, yet does not embrace agonism to the full.
    [Show full text]