Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 182–205 | Cite as

NATO and EU in conflict regulation: interlocking institutions and division of labour

  • Caja SchleichEmail author
Article

Abstract

The article examines the development of the relationship and cooperation of the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in conflict regulation. It states that over three phases these two institutions deepened their relationship in the aspect of an intensification of their cooperation, an adoption of specific functions and a de facto clearer division of labour in conflict regulation. It will analyse whether and to what degree this cooperation and a functional division of labour is based on the functional ascription by member states or more on the activities of the institutions themselves. This comparative study will thereby contribute to a necessary theory-based analysis of the relationship of these two major international security institutions and to a deeper analysis of the inter-institutional cooperation of EU and NATO. Furthermore, it will show the importance of a combined principal- (states) and agent- (institutions) centred approach towards the shaping and explaining of inter–institutional relationships as well as going beyond the simple principal–agent relationship and advancing to the principal–agent–agent relationship.

Keywords

inter-institutional cooperation EU NATO conflict regulation rational institutionalism principal-agent theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Alex Bellamy, Paul Williams, and Stuart Griffin, Understanding Peacekeeping (Cambridge, MA: Polity, 2004).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christopher Chivvis, Integrating Instruments of Power and Influence. Lessons Learned and Best Practices (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2008)Google Scholar
  3. 2a.
    Alexandra Gheciu, ‘Divided Partners: The Challenges of NATO-NGO Cooperation in Peacebuilding Operations’, Global Governance 17 (2011): 95–113Google Scholar
  4. 2b.
    Daniel Keohane, ‘Lessons from EU Peace Operations’, Journal of International Peacekeeping 15, no. 1 (2011): 200–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 2c.
    Claudia Major, ‘Ziviles Krisenmanagement in der Europäischen Union. Stand und Optionen zur Weiterentwicklung der Gemeinsamen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik’, SWP-Studie S 22 (Oktober 2012): 1–29; andGoogle Scholar
  6. 2d.
    Michael J. Williams, ‘(Un) Sustainable Peacebuilding: NATO’s Suitability for Postconflict Reconstruction in Multiactor Environments’, global Governance 17 (2011): 115–34.Google Scholar
  7. 3.
    Hanna Ojanen, ‘The EU as a Security Actor. In and With the UN and NATO’, in The EU Presence in International Organizations, ed. Spyros Blavoukos and Dimitris Bourantanis (London: Routledge, 2011), 62.Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    Gunther Hellman and Reinhard Wolf, ‘Neorealism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, and the Future of NATO’, Security Studies 3 no. 1 (1993): 3–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 4a.
    Robert O. Keohane, International Institutions and State Power. Essays in International Relations Theory (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989), 1–25; andGoogle Scholar
  10. 4b.
    Robert O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin, ‘Institutional Theory as a Research Program’, in Progress in International Relations Theory. Appraising the Field, ed. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), 71–107.Google Scholar
  11. 5.
    See among others Helga Haftendorn, ‘Sicherheitsinstitutionen in den internationalen Beziehungen. Eine Einführung’, in Kooperation jenseits von Hegemonie und Bedrohung. Sicherheitsinstitutionen in den internationalen Beziehungen, ed. Helga Haftendorn and Otto Keck (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1997), 11–33Google Scholar
  12. 5a.
    Helga Haftendorn, Robert O. Keohane and Celeste A. Wallander, ‘Introduction’, in Imperfect Unions. Security Institutions over Time and Space, ed. Helga Haftendorn, Robert O. Keohane and Celeste A. Wallander (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 1–18; andGoogle Scholar
  13. 5b.
    Otto Keck ‘Sicherheitsinstitutionen und der Wandel des internationalen Systems’, in Kooperation jenseits von Hegemonie und Bedrohung. Sicherheitsinstitutionen in den internationalen Beziehungen, ed. Helga Haftendorn and Otto Keck (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1997), 253–270.Google Scholar
  14. 6.
    Keohane, International Institutions; and Haftendorn, ‘Sicherheitsinstitutionen’.Google Scholar
  15. 7.
    Darren G. Hawkins, Delegation and agency in international organizations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 8.
    With the Treaty of Lisbon which came into power in 2009 it was renamed into CSDP.Google Scholar
  17. 9.
    Hawkins, Delegation and agency.Google Scholar
  18. 10.
    In the context of EU studies, see for example, Jens Blom-Hansen, ‘Principals, Agents and the Implementation of EU Cohesion Policy’, Journal of European Public Policy 12, no. 4 (2005): 624–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 10a.
    Hussein Kassim and Anand Menon, ‘The Principal-agent Approach and the Study of the European Union: Promise Unfulfilled?’ Journal ofEuropean Public Policy 10, no. 1 (2003): 121–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 10b.
    Mark A. Pollack, ‘Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the European Community’, International Organization 51, no. 1 (1997): 99–134; andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 10c.
    Roland Vaubel, ‘Principal-Agent-Probleme in internationalen Organisationen’, HWWA Discussion Paper 219 (February 2003): 1–19.Google Scholar
  22. 11.
    Haftendorn, ‘Sicherheitsinstitutionen’.Google Scholar
  23. 12.
    Robert Axelrod and Robert O. Keohane, ‘Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy. Strategies and Institutions’, World Politics 38, no. 1 (1985): 226–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 13.
    Haftendorn, ‘Sicherheitsinstitutionen’, 16–8; and Celeste A. Wallander and Robert O. Keohane, ‘Risk, Threat, and Security Institutions’, in Imperfect Unions. Security Institutions over Time and Space, ed. Helga Haftendorn, Robert O. Keohane, and Celeste A. Wallander (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 21–47.Google Scholar
  25. 14.
    Haftendorn, Keohane, and Wallander, ‘Introduction’.Google Scholar
  26. 15.
    Keohane, International Institutions; and Keohane and Martin, ‘Institutional Theory’.Google Scholar
  27. 16.
    Otto Keck, ‘Der Beitrag rationaler Theorieansätze zur Analyse von Sicherheitsinstitutionen’, in Kooperation jenseits von Hegemonie und Bedrohung. Sicherheitsinstitutionen in den internationalen Beziehungen, ed. Helga Haftendorn and Otto Keck (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1997), 35–56; and Keck, ‘Sicherheitsinstitutionen’, 265.Google Scholar
  28. 17.
    Haftendorn, ‘Sicherheitsinstitutionen’; Keohane, International Institutions.Google Scholar
  29. 18.
    Jeanne Haaland Matlary argues in the same direction. And she especially emphasises the influence of the European Triangle Great Britain-France-Germany. See Janne Haaland Matlary, European Union Security Dynamics. In the New National Interest (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).Google Scholar
  30. 19.
    Kassim and Menon, ‘The Principal-agent Approach’; and Pollack, ‘Delegation, Agency, and Agenda’.Google Scholar
  31. 20.
    Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, Rules of the World. International Organizations in Global Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004); and Hawkins, Delegation and Agency, 24–33.Google Scholar
  32. 21.
    Hawkins, Delegation and Agency, 8.Google Scholar
  33. 22.
    Mark A. Pollack, ‘Learning from the Americanists (Again): Theory and Method in the Study of Delegation’, West European Politics 25, no. 1 (2002): 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 23.
    Steven Blockmans and Ramses A. Wessel, ‘The European Union and Crisis Management: Will the Lisbon Treaty Make the EU More Effective?’ Journal of Conflict and Security Law 14, no. 2 (2009): 265–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 23a.
    Christopher S. Chivvis, EU Civilian Crisis Management. The Record So Far (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2010); andGoogle Scholar
  36. 23b.
    Alexandra Gheciu and Roland Paris, ‘NATO and the Challenge of Sustainable Peacebuilding’, Global Governance 17 (2011): 75–9.Google Scholar
  37. 24.
    Sven Biscop, ‘From Lisbon to Lisbon: Squaring the Circle of EU and NATO Future Roles’, Egmont Security Policy Brief 16 (January 2011): 1–6Google Scholar
  38. 24b.
    Joachim Koops, The European Union as an Integrative Power? Assessing the EU’s ‘Effective Multilateralism’ towards NATO and the United Nations (Brussels: Brussels University Press, 2011)Google Scholar
  39. 24c.
    Per M. Norheim-Martinsen, The European Union and Military Force. Governance and Strategy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); andGoogle Scholar
  40. 24d.
    James Sperling, ‘The European Union and NATO. Subordinate Partner, Cooperative Pillar, Competing Pole?’, in The EU Presence in International Organizations, ed. Spyros Blavoukos and Dimitris Bourantonis (London: Routledge, 2011), 33–60.Google Scholar
  41. 25.
    Stephanie C. Hofmann, ‘Overlapping Institutions in the Realm of International Security: The Case of NATO and ESDP’, Perspectives on Politics 7, no. 1 (2009): 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 26.
    Johannes Varwick, Die NATO. Vom Verteidigungsbündnis zur Weltpolizei? (München: Beck, 2008).Google Scholar
  43. 27.
    Johannes Varwick, Die Beziehungen zwischen NATO und EU. Partnerschaft, Konkurrenz, Rivalität? (Opladen: Budrich, 2005); andGoogle Scholar
  44. 27a.
    Richard G. Whitman, ‘NATO, the EU and ESDP: An Emerging Division of Labour?’ Contemporary Security Policy 25, no. 3 (2004): 430–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 28.
    Jolyon Howorth and John T.S. Keeler, Defending Europe. The EU, NATO and the Quest for European Autonomy (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 29.
    Joachim A. Koops, ‘Unstrategic Partners: NATO’s Relations with the European Union’, in Entangling Alliance: 60 Jahre NATO. Geschichte, Gegenwart, Zukunft, ed. Werner Kremp and Berthold Meyer (Trier: Wissenschaftsverlag, 2010), 41–78.Google Scholar
  47. 30.
    Varwick, Die Beziehungen zwischen NATO und EU.Google Scholar
  48. 31.
    Helga Haftendorn, ‘Für einen neuen strategischen Dialog im Bündnis. Dialogfähigkeit als Anpassungsaufgabe der NATO’, in Die Transformation der NATO. Die Zukunft der euro-atlantischen Sicherheitskooperation, ed. Henning Riecke (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2007), 141–54; and Varwick, Die Beziehungen zwischen NATO und EU, 300.Google Scholar
  49. 32.
    Nina Græger and Kristin M. Haugevik, ‘The EU’ s Performance with and within NATO: Assessing Objectives, Outcomes and Organisational Practices’, Journal of European Integration 33, no. 6 (2011): 743–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 33.
    Jolyon Howorth, Security and Defence Policy in the European Union (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 168f; Koops, ‘Unstrategic Partners’, 51f; and Whitman, ‘NATO, the EU and ESDP’, 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 34.
    Simon Duke, ‘The Future of EU-NATO Relations: A Case of Mutual Irrelevance Through Competition?’ European Integration 30, no. 1 (2008): 27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 34a.
    Simon Duke, ‘The EU, NATO and the Lisbon Treaty: Still Divided within a Common City’, Studia Diplomatica LXIV, no. 2 (2011): 19–35; andGoogle Scholar
  53. 34b.
    Volker Heise and Peter Schmidt, ‘NATO und EU: Auf dem Weg zu einer strategischen Partnerschaft?’, in Transatlantische Beziehungen. Sicherheit — Wirtschaft — Öffentlichkeit, ed. Thomas Jäger, Alexander Höse, and Kai Oppermann (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2005), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 35.
    Koops, ‘Unstrategic Partners’.Google Scholar
  55. 36.
    Duke, ‘The Future of EU-NATO Relations’; Interviews with EU and NATO officials in Brussels, March 2012 and June 2013; and Nicole Koenig, ‘The EU and NATO: Towards a Joint Future in Crisis Management?’ EU Diplomacy Papers 11 (2010): 1–38.Google Scholar
  56. 37.
    Koops, ‘Unstrategic Partners’, 69.Google Scholar
  57. 38.
    Interviews with EU and NATO representatives in Brussels in March 2012 and June 2013; Niels Lachmann, ‘NATO-CSDP-EU Relations: Sketching the Map of a Community of Practice’, CEPSI Working Paper 34 (2010), 1–34.Google Scholar
  58. 39.
    Simon J. Smith, ‘EU-NATO Cooperation: A Case of Institutional Fatigue?’ (paper presented at the UACES Annual Conference at the University of Bath, Bath, April 29–30, 2010)Google Scholar
  59. 39a.
    Emma J. Stewart, ‘European Union Conflict Prevention and the European Security Architecture’, in EU Conflict Prevention and Crisis Management. Roles, institutions and politics, ed. Eva Gross and Ana E. Juncos (London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2011), 32–45.Google Scholar
  60. 40.
    US Ministry of Defence, ‘Pentagon Defence Planning Guide: ‘Prevent the Re-emergence of a New Rival’, The New York Times, March 8, 1992.Google Scholar
  61. 41.
    Haftendorn, ‘Sicherheitsinstitutionen’, 273f.Google Scholar
  62. 42.
    Markus Kaim, Die Europäische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik. Präferenzbildungs-und Aushandlungsprozesse in der Europäischen Union (1990–2005) (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007), 309–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 43.
    Warren Christopher, ‘Intervention at the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council NATO Headquarters, Brussels, December 1, 1994’, NATO, https://doi.org/www.nato.int/docu/speech/1999/s990423j.htm (accessed October 21, 2008).Google Scholar
  64. 44.
    Jochen Hils and Jürgen Wilzewski, ‘Zwischen Republik und Imperium: Die Außenpolitik der USA von Clinton zu Bush‘, in Supermacht im Wandel. Die USA von Clinton zu Bush, ed. Hans-Jürgen Puhle, Söhnke Schreyer, and Jürgen Wilzewski (Frankfurt: Campus, 2004), 193–2Google Scholar
  65. 45.
    Gisela Müller-Brandeck-Bocquet, ‘The Big Member States’ Influence on the Shaping of the European Union’s Foreign, Security and Defence Policy’, in The Future of the European Foreign, Security and Defence Policy after Enlargement, ed. Gisela Müller-Brandeck-Bocquet (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2006), 25–53.Google Scholar
  66. 46.
    Paul Cornish, ‘Britain, the WEU and NATO’, in Europeanizing Security? NATO and an Integrating Europe (AICGS Research Report No. 9), ed. Carl Lankowski and Simon Serfaty (Washington: AICGS, 1999), 53–85.Google Scholar
  67. 47.
    Anand Memon, France, NATO and the Limits of Independence 1981–97 (Houndmills: Macmillan, 2000); and Müller-Brandeck-Bocquet, ‘Big Member States’ Influence’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 48.
    Livre Blanc sur la Défense, République Francaise, 1994.Google Scholar
  69. 49.
    Menon, France, 127–34.Google Scholar
  70. 50.
    Livre Blanc; and Anand Menon, ‘From Independence to Cooperation: France, NATO and European security’, International Affairs 71, no. 1 (1995): 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 51.
    Helga Haftendorn, Deutsche Außenpolitik zwischen Selbstbeschränkung und Selbstbehaup-tung 1945–2000 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 2001).Google Scholar
  72. 52.
    Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, Weißbuch zur Sicherheitspolitik Deutschlands und zur Zukunft der Bundeswehr (Bonn: Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, 1994).Google Scholar
  73. 53.
    Michael Meimeth, ‘Deutsche und französische Perspektiven einer Gemeinsamen Euro-päischen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik. Offene Fragen und verdeckte Wide-rsprüche’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B 3–4 (2003): 21–30.Google Scholar
  74. 54.
    Harald Müller, ‘Sicherheit für das vereinigte Deutschland’, in Außenpolitischer Wandel in theoretischer und vergleichender Perspektive: Die USA und die Bundesrepublik Deutsch-land, ed. Monika Medick-Krakau (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1999), 145–169; Müller-Bran-deck-Bocquet, ‘Big Member States’ Influence’, 39; andGoogle Scholar
  75. 54a.
    Marco Overhaus, ‘Zwischen kooperativer Sicherheit und militärischer Interventionsfähigkeit. Rot-grüne Sicherheitspolitik im Rahmen von ESVP und NATO’, in Deutschland im Abseits. Rot-grüne Außenpolitik 1998–2003, ed. Hanns W. Maull, Sebastian Harnisch, and Constantin Grund (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2003), 49–Google Scholar
  76. 55.
    NATO, The Alliance’s New Strategic Concept, agreed by the Heads of State and Government participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 7–8 November 1991 (Brussels: NATO, 1991).Google Scholar
  77. 56.
    Willy Claes, ‘Speech at the Munich Security Conference, February 3–5, 1995’, NATO, https://doi.org/www.nato.int/docu/speech/1995/s950203a.htm (accessed January 11, 2011)Google Scholar
  78. 56a.
    Javier Solana, ‘Renewing the Transatlantic Partnership: NATO Confronts the Next Century, Speech by Secretary General at Georgetown University, February 20, 1996’, NATO, https://doi.org/www.nato.int/docu/speech/1996/s960220a.htm (accessed January 11, 2011); andGoogle Scholar
  79. 56b.
    Manfred Wörner, ‘A Vigorous Alliance. A Motor for Peaceful Change in Europe’, NATO Review Web Edition 6, no. 40 (December 1992), https://doi.org/www.nato.int/docu/review/1992/9206–1.htm.
  80. 57.
    Wörner, ‘Vigorous Alliance’.Google Scholar
  81. 58.
    Manfred Wörner, ‘The Atlantic Alliance and European Security in the 1990s, Address to the Bremer Tabaks Collegium, Brussels, May 17, 1990’, NATO, https://doi.org/www.nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm (accessed January 11, 2011).Google Scholar
  82. 59.
    Jolyon Howorth, ‘Britain, NATO and CESDP: Fixed Strategy, Changing Tactics’, European Foreign Affairs Review 5 (2000): 377–96; Kaim, Europäische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik, 74f; Müller-Brandeck-Bocquet, ‘Big Member States’ influence’; and British Ministry of Defence, Strategic Defense Review. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Defence by Command of Her Majesty (London: UK Government, July 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 60.
    Matlary, European Union Security Dynamics, 110–17.Google Scholar
  84. 61.
    Jacques Chirac, ‘Allocution at the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of Heads of State and Government, April 23, 1999’, NATO, https://doi.org/www.nato.int/docu/speech/1999/s990423m.htm (accessed October 21, 2008).Google Scholar
  85. 62.
    Stephanie Hofman and Ronja Kempin, ‘France and the Transatlantic Relationship. Love Me, Love Me Not…’, SWP Working Paper FG 2 (2007): 6.Google Scholar
  86. 63.
    Tony Blair, ‘Rede bei der Eröffnung des European Research Institute zur Rolle Großbritanniens in Europa, 23. November 2001, Birmingham’, Internationale Politik 1 (2002): 103–9.Google Scholar
  87. 64.
    Bill Jones and Peter Byrd, ‘British Foreign and Defence Policy under the Blair Government’, in Politics UK, 6th ed., ed. Bill Jones et al. (Essex: Pearson, 2007), 724.Google Scholar
  88. 65.
    Tony Blair, NATO, Europe, Our Future Security. Speech at the NATO 50th Anniversary Conference (London: Royal United Services Institute, March 3, 1999), https://doi.org/www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view = Speech&id = 2149401 (accessed November 6, 2008).Google Scholar
  89. 66.
    Overhaus, ‘Zwischen kooperativer Sicherheit und militärischer Interventionsfähigkeit’.Google Scholar
  90. 67.
    Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, Weißbuch zur Sicherheit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und zur Lage und Zukunft der Bundeswehr (Berlin: Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, 2006), 46; and Haftendorn, Deutsche Außenpolitik.Google Scholar
  91. 68.
    Madeleine Albright, ‘The Right Balance Will Secure NATO’s Future’, Financial Times, December 7, 1998, in From St. Malo to Nice. European defence: core documents, Chaillot Papers 47, May 2001.Google Scholar
  92. 69.
    William J. Clinton, ‘Speech at the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the Level of Heads of State and Government, April 23, 1999’, NATO, https://doi.org/www.nato.int/docu/speech/1999/s990423j.htm (accessed October 21, 2008).Google Scholar
  93. 70.
    Strobe Talbott, ‘The New Europe and the New NATO, February 4, 1999’, US Department of State, https://doi.org/www.state.gov/www/policy_remarks/1999/990204_talbott_transat.html (accessed October 10, 2008).Google Scholar
  94. 71.
    George Robertson, ‘Speech at the Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Amsterdam, November 15, 1999’, in From St. Malo to Nice. European Defence: Core Documents, Chaillot Papers 47, ed. Maartje Rutten (Paris: Institute for Security Studies, 2001), 62.Google Scholar
  95. 72.
    Ibid., 63.Google Scholar
  96. 73.
    NATO, The Alliance Strategic Concept, Approved by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington, DC (Brussels: NATO, 1999).Google Scholar
  97. 74.
    Javier Solana, ‘“NATO: Its 50th Anniversary — The Washington Summit — The Next Century’, Speech by NATO Secretary General, Rome, January 25, 1999’, NATO, https://doi.org/www.nato.int/docu/speech/1999/s990125a.htm (accessed January 11, 2011).Google Scholar
  98. 75.
    Javier Solana, ‘Speech by the EU High Representative for the CFSP, German Marshall Fund Peter Weitz Awards Dinner, Washington DC, May 20, 2002’, in From Laeken to Copenhagen. European defence: core documents, Chaillot Papers 57, ed. Jean-Yves Haine (Paris: Institute for Security Studies, 2003), 63.Google Scholar
  99. 76.
    Howorth, ‘Britain, NATO and CESDP’.Google Scholar
  100. 77.
    UK Parliament, Defence White Paper Britain (London: UK Government, 2003); andGoogle Scholar
  101. 77a.
    Emil Kirchner, ‘British Perspectives on CFSP and ESDP’, in Europäische Außenpolitik. GASP-und ESVP-Konzeptionen ausgewählter EU-Mitgliedsstaaten, ed. Gisela Müller-Brandeck-Bocquet (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2002), 41–56.Google Scholar
  102. 78.
    Baroness Symons, ‘Stabilisation, Reconstruction and Peace Support Operations: Transforming NATO’s Capabilities, May 3, 2004’, British Foreign & Commonwealth Office, https://doi.org/www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/iView = Speech&id =1897335 (accessed November 6, 2008).Google Scholar
  103. 79.
    Hofman and Kempin, ‘France and the Transatlantic Relationship’; and Matlary, European Union Security Dynamics, 108–10.Google Scholar
  104. 80.
    Loi no. 2003–73 relative à la programmation militaire pour les années 2003 à 2008 (January 27, 2003).Google Scholar
  105. 81.
    Ronja Kempin, ‘Frankreichs neuer Nato-Kurs. Sinneswandel, Pragmatismus, Politik für Europa?’ SWP-Studie S 2 (Februar 2009): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 82.
    Overhaus, ‘Zwischen kooperativer Sicherheit und militärischer Interventionsfähigkeit’, 53.Google Scholar
  107. 83.
    Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, Weißbuch 2006.Google Scholar
  108. 84.
    Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, ‘Reinventing NATO — Does the Alliance Reflect the Changing Nature of Transatlantic Security? Keynote, Brussels, May 24, 2005’, NATO, https://doi.org/www.nato.int/docu/speech/2005/s050524a.htm (accessed January 10, 2011); EU, European Security Strategy (Brussels, 12 December 2003).Google Scholar
  109. 85.
    Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, ‘Global NATO: Overdue or Overstretch? Speech at the SDA Conference, Brussels, November 6, 2006’, NATO, https://doi.org/www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s061106a.htm (accessed January 10, 2011); andGoogle Scholar
  110. 85a.
    Javier Solana, ‘Where We Stand: From Building Peace in Europe to Being a Peace-builder in the World — Tacking Stock of the Union’s Foreign and Security Policy’, Chaillot Paper 112 (Summer/Autumn 2007): 266–70.Google Scholar
  111. 86.
    NATO, Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Lisbon: NATO, 2010).Google Scholar
  112. 87.
    Javier Solana, ‘Speech at the 40th Commanders Conference of the German Bundeswehr, Bonn, October 11, 2005’, Chaillot Paper 87 (2005): 285.Google Scholar
  113. 88.
    Scheffer, ‘Global NATO’.Google Scholar
  114. 89.
    Simon J. Smith, ‘EU-NATO Cooperation: A Case of Institutional Fatigue?’ European Security 20, no. 2 (2011): 243–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 90.
    Græger and Haugevik, ‘The EU’s Performance with and within NATO’, 746f; and Henna Hopia, Breaking down the Walls: Improving EU-NATO Relations (Brussels: Centre for European Studies, 2013), 29–34.Google Scholar
  116. 91.
    Mihai Carp, ‘NATO Policy and Perspectives on Reconstruction Operations and NATO-EU Cooperation’, in NATO-EU Cooperation in Post-conflict Reconstruction, ed. Jean Dufourcq and David S. Yost (Rome: NATO Defense College Research Branch, 2006), 37–41; Interviews at EU and NATO, Brussels March 2012 and June 2013; and Smith, ‘EU-NATO Cooperation: A Case of Institutional Fatigue?’ 92._Jolyon Howorth, ‘The EU and NATO after Libya and Afghanistan: The Future of Euro-U.S. Security Cooperation’, Yale Journal of International Affairs 8, no. 1 (Winter 2013): 30–9.Google Scholar
  117. 93.
    Matlary, European Union Security Dynamics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceRuprecht-Karls University HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations