Canada–US Security Cooperation: Interests, Institutions, Identity and Ideas

  • Todd Hataley
  • Christian Leuprecht
Part of the Canada and International Affairs book series (CIAF)


The Canada–US security relationship has always been one of balance: creating institutions that balance the power differential, balancing domestic, regional and global interests, balancing identity considerations and balancing the ideas that drive our respective state and bilateral policies forward. However, time might challenge the balanced relationship between Canada and the United States; the two countries are continually able to return the relationship to a secure and stable homeostasis. Although the current era of Trump and Trudeau may punctuate that equilibrium, the bilateral security relationship will remain robust nonetheless. This paper examines continuity and change in the bilateral security relationship as a function of these shared institutions, interests, identities and ideas in four areas of cross-border cooperation: policing, military, intelligence sharing and border enforcement.


  1. Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dougherty, James E., and Robert F. Pfaltzgraff. 2001. Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey. 5th ed. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  3. Griffith, Lewis, and David Hamm. 2006. Drivers of Political Behaviour. Montgomery, AL: Air University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Holsti, K. J. 1995. International Politics: A Framework for Analysis. 7th ed. London: Prentice-Hall International.Google Scholar
  5. Immergut, Ellen. 1998. “Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism.” Politics and Society 26 (1): 5–34.Google Scholar
  6. Kilroy, Richard J. 2007. “Perimeter Defense and Regional Security Cooperation.” Homeland Security Affairs (Suppl. No. 1).Google Scholar
  7. Kubalkova, Vendulka, Nicholas Onuf, and Paul Kowert, eds. 1998. International Relations in a Constructed World. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  8. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1998. “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders.” International Organization 52 (4): 943–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Rodriguez Sumano, Abelardo. 2007. “Mexico’s Insecurity in North America.” Homeland Security Affairs (Suppl. No. 1).Google Scholar
  11. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2008. “Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse.” The Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2010. “Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change Through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth New Institutionalism.” European Political Science Review 2 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2011. “Speaking of Change: Why Discourse Is the Key to the Dynamics of Policy Transformation.” Critical Policy Studies 5 (2): 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2017. “Theorizing Ideas and Discourse in Political Science: Intersubjectivity, Neo-institutionalisms and the Power of Ideas.” Critical Review 29 (2): 248–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wendt, Alexander. 1996. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Todd Hataley
    • 1
  • Christian Leuprecht
    • 1
  1. 1.Royal Military College of CanadaKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations