DOCSLIB.ORG

France, Germany and the United Kingdom

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
France, Germany and the United Kingdom FRANCE, GERMANY AND THE UNITED KINGDOM COOPERATION IN TIMES OF TURBULENCE ABSTRACT This thesis deals with cooperation between France, Germany and the United Kingdom within the area of foreign and security policy. Two case studies are presented, one of them concerning cooperation between the three states within and outside institutions in 1980 following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the other dealing with cooperation concerning the crisis in Macedonia in 2001. In accordance with the approach of neoliberal institutionalism the primary hypothesis is that cooperation is primarily determined by the interests of states but it is also limited by norms and affected by the institutions of which the three states are members. The study describes the large variety of forms of cooperation that exist between France, Germany and the United Kingdom, in which the United States also plays an important part, and which also includes their cooperation within a number of international institutions. The study concludes that cooperation between France, Germany and the United Kingdom in 1980 and 2001 was highly similar. In both periods the relationship to the US formed a vital part of their foreign and security policy. In accordance with the primary hypothesis, perceived interests turned out to be the predominant factor for cooperation, but norms and institutions also played certain roles. A second hypothesis, serving as a precision of the first one, suggests that institutional cooperation is determined by (1) an institution’s capability to initiate work quickly, (2) an institution’s competence within the relevant areas, and (3) country support. The study finds that even if the factors related to institutional capability often coincide with the involvement of institutions, the factor of country support is decisive to determine their involvement. The study also points to the new forms of interaction between states and institutions that have come about since the Cold War ended, and which give a stronger role to institutions and the cooperation between them. Still, however, states retain a decisive role in cooperation within the field of foreign and security policy. Key words: France, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, United Nations, OSCE, WEU, NATO, European Union (EU), Afghanistan, Macedonia, cooperation, foreign and security policy, CFSP, ESDP. Stockholm Studies in Politics 100 FRANCE, GERMANY AND THE UNITED KINGDOM COOPERATION IN TIMES OF TURBULENCE Gunilla Herolf Stockholm University Department of Political Science Cover design by Mats Herolf Photos Soviet forces patrolling the streets of Kabul 31 January 1980. Copyright Pressens Bild Fighting near Tetovo, FYROM, 15 March 2001. Published with the kind permission of the OSCE © Gunilla Herolf 2004 ISBN 91-7265-797-9 Intellecta DocuSys, Sollentuna, Stockholm 2004 Contents Acknowledgements Acronyms and Abbreviations Part I. Design and Theory Chapter 1. A Study of France, Germany and the United 3 Kingdom 1.1. Why This Study? 3 1.2. Brief Description of the Study 4 1.2.1. Theory and Hypotheses 5 1.2.1.1. The Dependent Variables 6 1.3. The Choice of France, Germany and the United Kingdom 6 1.4. The Area of Study 11 1.5. The Institutions 12 1.5.1. The Formal Structure of Cooperation Arrangements 12 1.5.2. The Institutions Under Study 14 1.6. Other Forms of Cooperation Under Study 16 1.7. The Comparative Method and the Selection of the Two Cases 17 1.8. The Sources 20 1.9. Outline of the Study 21 Chapter 2. Theory: Neoliberal Institutionalism as Applied 22 in This Study 2.1. Theory and Hypothesis 22 2.2. Neoliberal Institutionalism 24 2.2.1. The Crucial Elements 24 2.2.2. Neoliberal Institutionalism and Other Varieties of 27 Institutionalism 2.3. Cooperation 29 2.3.1. The Definition of Cooperation 29 2.3.2. The Basis for Cooperation 31 2.3.3. Forms of Cooperation 32 2.3.3.1. The Variety of Forms of Cooperation 32 2.3.3.2. Uni-, Bi-, Tri- and Multilateral Activities 32 2.3.4. Dependent Variables: Pattern, Content and Impact of 33 Cooperation 2.4. States 34 2.4.1. The Variety of Approaches 34 2.4.2. The Unitary Actor 34 2.4.3. The Domestic Level 35 2.4.4. The Approach of This Study 37 2.5. Interests 39 2.5.1. Some Underlying Factors 39 2.5.2. Capabilities of States 40 2.5.2.1. Capabilities and Interests 40 2.5.2.2. United States–Europe 41 2.5.2.3. The European States 43 2.5.3. Perceived Interests 44 2.5.4. Interests and Cooperation 45 2.6. Norms Associated with Institutions 47 2.6.1. Characteristics of Norms 47 2.6.2. Perceived Norms 49 2.6.3. Establishing the Existing Norms 51 2.7. Institutions 52 2.7.1. Institutions in General 52 2.7.2. Individual Institutions 55 Part II. The Afghanistan Crisis, 1980 Map of Afghanistan and South-West Asia 58 Chapter 3. The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan: The Issue 59 of Sanctions 3.1. Introduction 59 3.1.1. The Analysis 60 3.1.1.1. Time Periods and Method of Analysis 61 3.2. Background 62 3.2.1. Security Relations between the United States and 62 Western Europe 3.2.2. The US and the Three European States: Trade Relations 65 with the USSR 3.2.3. Afghanistan Before the Invasion 70 3.2.3.1. France, Germany and the UK 71 3.2.3.2. The United States 72 3.2.4. The Events Leading up to the Invasion 73 3.3. The Reactions up to and including 28 December: Messages 73 to the Soviet Union and the General Public 3.4. The Period up to 15 January 75 3.4.1. The United States 75 3.4.1.1. The American Evaluation of the Invasion 75 3.4.1.2. The American Initiatives 76 3.4.2. Western Contacts and Cooperation: 15 January 1980 78 3.4.2.1. The London Meeting 78 3.4.2.2. NATO Meetings 80 3.4.2.3. The United Nations 84 3.4.2.4. The EC 86 3.4.2.5. The EPC 88 3.4.2.6. The WEU 89 3.4.3. Conclusion: The Outcome as Explained by Institutional 89 Capability 3.4.4. The French, German and British Evaluations of the 94 Invasion 3.4.4.1. The French Evaluation of the Invasion 94 3.4.4.2. The German Evaluation of the Invasion 95 3.4.4.3. The British Evaluation of the Invasion 97 3.4.5. French, German and British Reactions to the Invasion 97 3.4.5.1. The French Reactions 97 3.4.5.2. The French Cooperation Pattern 99 3.4.5.3. The German Reactions 99 3.4.5.4. The German Cooperation Pattern 102 3.4.5.5. The British Reactions 103 3.4.5.6. The British Cooperation Pattern 104 3.4.6. Conclusion 105 3.4.6.1. The United States as Initiator 105 3.4.6.2. European Evaluations and Reactions 106 3.4.6.3. Choice of Policies towards the Soviet Union 107 and the United States 3.4.6.4. Cooperation of States 108 3.4.6.5. States and Institutions: The Impact of Country 109 Support and Overall Conclusion 3.5. Analysis of the Whole Period 110 3.5.1. The Issue of Sanctions and the Institutions 111 3.5.1.1. The Agricultural Embargo and the EC 111 3.5.1.2. Export Credits and the EC 113 3.5.1.3. Embargo on High-Technology and Strategic 114 Items: the EC and CoCom 3.5.1.4. The Olympic Games and the EPC 117 3.5.1.5. Conclusion: The Outcome as Explained by 120 Institutional Capability 3.5.1.6. The Pattern and Content of Cooperation 120 3.5.1.7. The Impact of Institutional Cooperation 121 3.6. France, Germany and the UK: Interests, Norms and 122 Cooperation 3.6.1. France and the Sanctions 122 3.6.1.1. The Economic Area 122 3.6.1.2. France and the Olympic Games 123 3.6.1.3. Cooperation Patterns 124 3.6.1.4. The French Perception of Norms in Relation 128 to Institutions 3.6.2. Germany and the Sanctions 132 3.6.2.1. The Economic Area 133 3.6.2.2. Germany and the Olympic Games 135 3.6.2.3. Cooperation Patterns 137 3.6.2.4. The German Perception of Norms in Relation 139 to Institutions 3.6.3. The United Kingdom and the Sanctions 142 3.6.3.1. The Economic Area 143 3.6.3.2. The UK and the Olympic Games 144 3.6.3.3. Cooperation Patterns 146 3.6.3.4. The British Perception of Norms in Relation 147 to Institutions 3.7. Concluding Remarks: The Outcome of Cooperation 150 3.7.1. The End of the Issue of Sanctions 150 Table 3.1. Regional Distribution of East–West Trade, 1979–80 66 Table 3.2. Capability to Initiate Work Quickly: a Comparison 90 of the Institutions Table 3.3. Competence in the Relevant Areas: a Comparison 92 of the Institutions Chapter 4. The British Proposal for a Neutral 153 Afghanistan 4.1. Introduction 153 4.2. The Background 153 4.3. The Soviet Attitude 154 4.4. The American Attitude 155 4.5. The Institutions 156 4.5.1. The EPC 156 4.5.2. Other Institutions 157 4.6. Institutional Capability: the Pattern and Content 158 of Cooperation 4.7. The Three European Countries and the Proposal 158 4.7.1. The British Activities 158 4.7.2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Making of Yugoslavia's People's Republic of Macedonia 377 Ward the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist Party Hardened
    THE MAKING OF YUGOSLAVIA’S PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA Fifty years since the liberation of Macedonia, the perennial "Ma­ cedonian Question” appears to remain alive. While in Greece it has deF­ initely been settled, the establishment of a "Macedonian State” within the framework of the People’s Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has given a new form to the old controversy which has long divided the three Balkan States, particularly Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. The present study tries to recount the events which led to its founding, the purposes which prompted its establishment and the methods employed in bringing about the tasks for which it was conceived. The region of Southern Yugoslavia,' which extends south of a line traversed by the Shar Mountains and the hills just north of Skopje, has been known in the past under a variety of names, each one clearly denoting the owner and his policy concerning the region.3 The Turks considered it an integral part of their Ottoman Empire; the Serbs, who succeeded them, promptly incorporated it into their Kingdom of Serbs and Croats and viewed it as a purely Serbian land; the Bulgarians, who seized it during the Nazi occupation of the Balkans, grasped the long-sought opportunity to extend their administrative control and labeled it part of the Bulgarian Father- land. As of 1944, the region, which reverted to Yugoslavia, has been known as the People’s Republic of Macedonia, one of the six federative republics of communist Yugoslavia. The new name and administrative structure, exactly as the previous ones, was intended for the purpose of serving the aims of the new re­ gime.
    [Show full text]
  • English, French, and Spanish Colonies: a Comparison
    COLONIZATION AND SETTLEMENT (1585–1763) English, French, and Spanish Colonies: A Comparison THE HISTORY OF COLONIAL NORTH AMERICA centers other hand, enjoyed far more freedom and were able primarily around the struggle of England, France, and to govern themselves as long as they followed English Spain to gain control of the continent. Settlers law and were loyal to the king. In addition, unlike crossed the Atlantic for different reasons, and their France and Spain, England encouraged immigration governments took different approaches to their colo- from other nations, thus boosting its colonial popula- nizing efforts. These differences created both advan- tion. By 1763 the English had established dominance tages and disadvantages that profoundly affected the in North America, having defeated France and Spain New World’s fate. France and Spain, for instance, in the French and Indian War. However, those were governed by autocratic sovereigns whose rule regions that had been colonized by the French or was absolute; their colonists went to America as ser- Spanish would retain national characteristics that vants of the Crown. The English colonists, on the linger to this day. English Colonies French Colonies Spanish Colonies Settlements/Geography Most colonies established by royal char- First colonies were trading posts in Crown-sponsored conquests gained rich- ter. Earliest settlements were in Virginia Newfoundland; others followed in wake es for Spain and expanded its empire. and Massachusetts but soon spread all of exploration of the St. Lawrence valley, Most of the southern and southwestern along the Atlantic coast, from Maine to parts of Canada, and the Mississippi regions claimed, as well as sections of Georgia, and into the continent’s interior River.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO Expansion: Benefits and Consequences
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2001 NATO expansion: Benefits and consequences Jeffrey William Christiansen The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Christiansen, Jeffrey William, "NATO expansion: Benefits and consequences" (2001). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8802. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8802 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ■rr - Maween and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of M ontana Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission X No, I do not grant permission ________ Author's Signature; Date:__ ^ ^ 0 / Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. MSThe»i9\M«r«f»eld Library Permission Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NATO EXPANSION: BENEFITS AND CONSEQUENCES by Jeffrey William Christiansen B.A. University of Montana, 2000 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts The University of Montana 2001 Approved by: hairpers Dean, Graduate School 7 - 24- 0 ^ Date Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Macedonian Project,”
    PUBLISHED VERSION Tubilewicz, Czeslaw Taiwan's “Macedonian Project,” 1999–2001 The China Quarterly, 2004; 179:782-803 © The China Quarterly, 2004 Originally Published at: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ISH PERMISSIONS http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4676 Institutional repositories 2.4. The author may post the VoR version of the article (in PDF or HTML form) in the Institutional Repository of the institution in which the author worked at the time the article was first submitted, or (for appropriate journals) in PubMed Central or UK PubMed Central or arXiv, no sooner than one year after first publication of the article in the Journal, subject to file availability and provided the posting includes a prominent statement of the full bibliographical details, a copyright notice in the name of the copyright holder (Cambridge University Press or the sponsoring Society, as appropriate), and a link to the online edition of the Journal at Cambridge Journals Online. 23 April 2014 http://hdl.handle.net/2440/46919 Research Report Taiwan’s “Macedonian Project,” 1999–2001 Czeslaw Tubilewicz ABSTRACT Since 1989, Taipei has attempted to capitalize on the systemic changes in East Central Europe. It achieved its goal of winning diplomatic allies among the post-communist states only in 1999, when Macedonia recognized the Republic of China (ROC) hoping that Taipei’s generosity would resolve its economic problems. In order to showcase the effectiveness of its assistance, Taipei resorted to economic diplomacy and offered Skopje loans, humanitarian and technical assistance. Yet, the Macedonian–Taiwanese partnership ended in 2001. This report will argue that Taipei failed to become a viable alternative to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as Skopje’s economic and diplomatic partner because of China’s clout in international affairs and its own reluctance to shower Macedonia with developmental assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrangement Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the States of Guernsey (The
    ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE STATES OF GUERNSEY (THE GOVERNMENT OF GUERNSEY) CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM-CROWN DEPENDENCIES CUSTOMS UNION The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Guernsey (together “the Governments”), ACKNOWLEDGING that the United Kingdom continues to be responsible for the international relations of Guernsey in international law and that this Arrangement cannot therefore create obligations which are binding under international law and is not intended to alter or affect the constitutional relationship between Guernsey and the United Kingdom, DESIRING to enter into a customs union covering all trade in goods involving the elimination between its members of customs duty on imports and exports and of any charges having equivalent effect, and the adoption of a common customs tariff in their relations with third countries, ACKNOWLEDGING that this Arrangement is without prejudice to the imposition of import value added tax (hereinafter referred to as “import VAT”) or excise duty, or any charges having equivalent effect to import VAT or excise duty, on goods imported into the United Kingdom from Guernsey or into Guernsey from the United Kingdom, RECOGNISING the importance of delivering a safe and fiscally secure customs regime, RECOGNISING the importance of cooperation in delivering such a regime, HAVE DECIDED as follows: PARAGRAPH 1 Object 1. This Arrangement concerns the establishment and operation of the United Kingdom- Crown Dependencies Customs Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Customs Union”), the members of which are the United Kingdom, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Relations Between Albania and France 1945- 1990
    ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Vol 8 No 5 S1 ISSN 2039-9340 (print) Social Sciences September 2017 Political Relations between Albania and France 1945- 1990 Arshela Arapi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paris, France Abstract This paper focuses on the relations between Albania and France in the period 1945-1990 in the political optics, and aims to evaluate the dynamics of this cooperation, pointing to the different intensity at different times during dictatorship, byhilosophical demagoguery of the Albanian party and the identification of collaborative priorities extended over 20 years. Albanian - French cooperation spread in all fields. Since our country was still unconfirmed as a state, it needed the experience of other countries. France was a kind of guide to our country, as it was a developed country. Albania also linked with France by some traditional and conjunctural elements. France regarded Albania as very important, and considered it as an opportunity to expand its economy and improve its situation. France needed the mineral resources of Albania. In general, our relations with France has been normal and were concretized in several areas of mutual interest, such as trade and culture. In various speeches, the Albanian leadership has expressed the desire to strengthen more these relations on the basis of the recognized principles of equality, non-interference and mutual benefit. But at certain times, there was also anxiety, and in July 1984, there was a regress of state relations. Keywords: France, collaboration, convention, strategy 1. Introduction In the framework of the complex historical evaluation of the diplomatic policy of the Albanian country, the relationships, with the European countries in general and those of the Western Europe especially, hold a great importance.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendment to Registration Statement
    Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 08/14/2020 3:22:34 PM OMB No. 1124-0003; Expires July 31, 2023 U.S. Department of Justice Amendment to Registration Statement Washington, dc 20530 Pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended INSTRUCTIONS. File this amendment form for any changes to a registration. Compliance is accomplished by filing an electronic amendment to registration statement and uploading any supporting documents at https://www.fara.gov. Privacy Act Statement. The filing of this document is required for the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq., for the purposes of registration under the Act and public disclosure. Provision of the information requested is mandatory, and failure to provide the information is subject to the penalty and enforcement provisions established in Section 8 of the Act. Every registration statement, short form registration statement, supplemental statement, exhibit, amendment, copy of informational materials or other document or information filed with the Attorney General under this Act is a public record open to public examination, inspection and copying during the posted business hours of the FARA Unit in Washington, DC. Statements are also available online at the FARA Unit’s webpage: https://www.fara.gov. One copy of eveiy such document, other than informational materials, is automatically provided to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, and copies of any and all documents are routinely made available to other agencies, departments and Congress pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act. The Attorney General also transmits a semi-annual report to Congress on the administration of the Act which lists the names of all agents registered under the Act and the foreign principals they represent.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit and the Future of the US–EU and US–UK Relationships
    Special relationships in flux: Brexit and the future of the US–EU and US–UK relationships TIM OLIVER AND MICHAEL JOHN WILLIAMS If the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union in the referendum of June 2016 then one of the United States’ closest allies, one of the EU’s largest member states and a leading member of NATO will negotiate a withdrawal from the EU, popularly known as ‘Brexit’. While talk of a UK–US ‘special relation- ship’ or of Britain as a ‘transatlantic bridge’ can be overplayed, not least by British prime ministers, the UK is a central player in US–European relations.1 This reflects not only Britain’s close relations with Washington, its role in European security and its membership of the EU; it also reflects America’s role as a European power and Europe’s interests in the United States. A Brexit has the potential to make a significant impact on transatlantic relations. It will change both the UK as a country and Britain’s place in the world.2 It will also change the EU, reshape European geopolitics, affect NATO and change the US–UK and US–EU relationships, both internally and in respect of their place in the world. Such is the potential impact of Brexit on the United States that, in an interview with the BBC’s Jon Sopel in summer 2015, President Obama stated: I will say this, that having the United Kingdom in the European Union gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the transatlantic union and is part of the corner- stone of institutions built after World War II that has made the world safer and more prosperous.
    [Show full text]
  • VS3 Why Were European Countries, Like Spain, England, and France In
    VS3 Why were European countries , like To increase their wealth and power by Spain, England, and France in expanding their empires to America. competition ? “Expanding their empires” means to get more land. What was the first permanent English Jamestown settlemen t in America? When was Jamestown settled ? When? 1607 Why did England make a colony in England wanted: America ? 1. wealth and power 2. silver and gold! 3. raw materials (example: wood) 4. new trade routes What was the main reason Jamestown It was an economic venture , which was settled? means the main goal was to make money Who financed (gave money) to start the STOCKHOLDERS of the Virginia Jamestown? Company of London On what landform was Jamestown A narrow peninsula , which was founded? surrounded on 3 sides by the James River (today it’s an island because of erosion) Why was the Jamestown site chosen? 1. They were told to go inland . 2. The location could be easily defended from attacks by sea (by the Spanish) 3. Water along the shore was deep enough for ships. 4. They thought it had a good supply of fresh water . (not true) Who granted the charter to the Virginia The King of England (King James) Company of England? Why were the Virginia charters 1. Established a settlement in North important? America 2. Extended ENGLISH RIGHTS to the settlers When was the first meeting of the 1619 GENERAL ASSEMBLY? What were the two representatives from Burgesses each division in Virginia called? Which branch of government is the Legislative General Assembly? Who could participate in the General only certain free adult men Assembly in 1619? Why is the Virginia General Assembly It was the first elected legislative body important? in English America giving settlers the opportunity to control their own government.
    [Show full text]
  • Death of an Institution: the End for Western European Union, a Future
    DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? EGMONT PAPER 46 DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? ALYSON JK BAILES AND GRAHAM MESSERVY-WHITING May 2011 The Egmont Papers are published by Academia Press for Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations. Founded in 1947 by eminent Belgian political leaders, Egmont is an independent think-tank based in Brussels. Its interdisciplinary research is conducted in a spirit of total academic freedom. A platform of quality information, a forum for debate and analysis, a melting pot of ideas in the field of international politics, Egmont’s ambition – through its publications, seminars and recommendations – is to make a useful contribution to the decision- making process. *** President: Viscount Etienne DAVIGNON Director-General: Marc TRENTESEAU Series Editor: Prof. Dr. Sven BISCOP *** Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations Address Naamsestraat / Rue de Namur 69, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone 00-32-(0)2.223.41.14 Fax 00-32-(0)2.223.41.16 E-mail [email protected] Website: www.egmontinstitute.be © Academia Press Eekhout 2 9000 Gent Tel. 09/233 80 88 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.academiapress.be J. Story-Scientia NV Wetenschappelijke Boekhandel Sint-Kwintensberg 87 B-9000 Gent Tel. 09/225 57 57 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.story.be All authors write in a personal capacity. Lay-out: proxess.be ISBN 978 90 382 1785 7 D/2011/4804/136 U 1612 NUR1 754 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Major Step in the Peace Process? Exploring the Impact of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on Irish Republican Thinking
    The first major step in the peace process? Exploring the impact of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on Irish republican thinking McLoughlin, P. (2014). The first major step in the peace process? Exploring the impact of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on Irish republican thinking. In J. Coakley, & J. Todd (Eds.), Breaking Patterns of Conflict: Britain, Ireland and the Northern Ireland Question (1 ed., pp. 116-133). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138780286 Published in: Breaking Patterns of Conflict: Britain, Ireland and the Northern Ireland Question Document Version: Peer reviewed version Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights ©2014 Taylor & Francis Group This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge in Breaking Patterns of Conflict on 24 October 2014, available online: https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138780286 General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected]. Download date:23.
    [Show full text]