Abstract
Chapter six described the risk management model; this chapter presents tests of several distinct aspects of burden sharing. The first set of models integrates risk and US bilateral agreements while replicating previous findings employing the common measure from the literature, military spending. The second set of models examines whether states participate in a new conflict/crisis operation and the final section of the chapter explores NATO’s role, as the delegated agent for partners, concerning (global) crisis management and cooperative security. The chapter ends with a qualitative analysis of the legal texts founding two NATO COE followed by conclusions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abouharb, M. R., & Kimball, A. L. (2007). A new dataset on infant mortality rates, 1816–2002. Journal of Peace Research, 44(6), 743–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343307082071
Booth, K. (Ed.). (1998). Statecraft and security: The cold war and beyond. Cambridge University Press.
Bueno de Mesquita, B. (Ed.). (2005). The logic of political survival (1. paperback ed). MIT Press.
Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1980). An expected utility theory of international conflict. American Political Science Review, 74(4), 917–931. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954313
Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Lalman, D. (1992). War and reason: Domestic and international imperatives. Yale University Press.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Morrow, J., Siverson, R., & Smith, A. (1999). An institutional explanation of the democratic peace. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 791–807. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586113
Burges, S. (2013). Mistaking Brazil for a middle power. Journal of Iberian and Latin American Research, 19(2), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13260219.2013.853358
Carr, A. (2014). Is Australia a middle power? A systemic impact approach. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 68(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2013.840264
Chapnick, A. (2000). The Canadian middle power myth. International Journal, 55(2), 188. https://doi.org/10.2307/40203476
Clark, D., & Nordstrom, T. (2005). Democratic variants and democratic variance: How domestic constraints shape interstate conflict. The Journal of Politics, 67(1), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00316.x
Cooper, A. (2016). Niche diplomacy: Middle powers after the cold war. Palgrave Macmillan Limited. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=5645087
Czech Republic, Germany, Hellenic Republic, Romania, Slovak Republic, Republic of Slovenia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, & Allied Command Transformation. (2006). MOU concerning the functional relationship regarding the joint chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defence centre of excellence.
de Sá Guimarães, F., & de Almeida, M. (2017). From middle powers to entrepreneurial powers in world politics: Brazil’s successes and failures in international crises. Latin American Politics and Society, 59(4), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/laps.12032
Dorussen, H., Kirchner, E., & Sperling, J. (2009). Sharing the burden of collective security in the European Union. International Organization, 63(4), 789–810. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818309990105
Evans, P., Jacobson, H. K., & Putnam, R. (Eds.). (1993). Double-edged diplomacy: International bargaining and domestic politics. University of California Press.
Gheciu, A. (2005). Security institutions as agents of socialization? NATO and the “New Europe.” International Organization, 59(4), 973–1012.
Hungary, Belgium, Czech Republic, French Republic, Republic of Germany, Italian Republic, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, & United States of America. (2014). MOU concerning the establishment, administration, and operation of a COE for military medicine.
Holbraad, C. (1984). Middle powers in international politics. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06865-4
Jongryn, M. (Ed.). (2015). MIKTA, middle powers, and new dynamics of global governance: The G20’s evolving agenda (1st edition). Palgrave Macmillan.
Jordaan, E. (2003). The concept of a middle power in international relations: Distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. Politikon, 30(1), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0258934032000147282
Kavanagh, J. (2014). U.S. Security-Related Agreements in Force Since 1955: Introducing a New Database. RAND Corporation.
Kimball, A. & Lewis. (2010). Le rôle accru des organisations internationales dans les conflits contemporains. In Conflits dans le monde 2010b. Presses Université Laval.
Kimball, A. & Lewis. (2011). La délégation à l’épreuve du terrain: Les difficiles interventions militaires et civiles des organisations internationales dans les conflits et les crises. In Conflits dans le monde, 2011. Presses Université Laval.
Kimball, A. (2019). Knocking on NATO: Strategic and institutional challenges risk the future of Europe’s seven-decade long cold peace. The School of Public Policy Publications, 12. https://doi.org/10.11575/SPPP.V12I0.68129
Kimball, A. (2021a). L’OTAN peut-elle encore avoir un rôle multilatéral? In L’après COVID-19: Quel multilatéralisme face aux enjeux globaux? Regards croisés: Union européenne – Amérique du nord – Chine (pp. 343–356). Bruylant-Larcier.
Kimball, A. (2021b). Managing risks, side payments, and multi-institutional enlargement: The role of US defence, big four investment agreements and candidate risks on NATO and EU enlargement. European Politics and Society, 22(5), 696–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2020.1820152
Koremenos & Nau. (2010). Exit, no exit. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 21(1), 81–120.
Koremenos, B. (2008). When, what, and why do states choose to delegate? Law & Contemporary Problems, 71(1), 151–192.
Koremenos, B. (2013). The continent of international law. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 57(4), 653–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002712448904
Linde, J. (2020). Expected utility and political decision making. Linde, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.885
Lindley-French, J. (2015). The North Atlantic Treaty Organization: The enduring alliance (2nd edition). Routledge.
Lobo, S. (2012). NATO transformation and centers of excellence: Analyzing rationale and roles. University of Oslo. http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-32044
Macdonald, L., & Paltiel, J. (2016). Middle power or muddling power? Canada’s relations with emerging markets. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 22(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/11926422.2016.1144626
Männik, E. (2004). Small states: Invited to NATO—able to contribute?. Defense & Security Analysis, 20(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475179042000195483
Marton, P., & Eichler, J. (2013). Between willing and reluctant entrapment: CEE countries in NATO’s non-European missions. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 46(3), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2013.06.002
Milner, H. (1997). Interests, institutions, and information: Domestic politics and international relations. Princeton University Press.
Neack, L., Hey, J., & Haney, P. (1995). Foreign policy analysis: Continuity and change in its second generation. Prentice Hall.
Neack, L. (1993). Delineating state groups through cluster analysis. The Social Science Journal, 30(4), 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-3319(93)90014-M
O’Neill, B. (2001). Risk aversion in international relations theory. International Studies Quarterly, 45(4), 617–640.
Patience, A. (2018). Australian foreign policy in Asia. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69347-7
Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.
Sandler, T. (2004). Global collective action (1st edition). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617119
Shin, S. (2016). South Korea’s elusive middle powermanship: Regional or global player? The Pacific Review, 29(2), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2015.1013494
Simion, E. (2016). NATO centres of excellence and the transformation of the North-Atlantic alliance. University of Oradea. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-73403-8
Smith, A. (1995). Alliance formation and war. International Studies Quarterly, 39(4), 405. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600800
Smith, A. (1996). To intervene or not to intervene: A biased decision. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40(1), 16–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002796040001003
Snider, L. (2005). Political risk: The institutional dimension. International Interactions, 31(3), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620500294176
Ungerer, C. (2007). The “Middle power” concept in Australian foreign policy. Australian Journal of Politics & History, 53(4), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2007.00473.x
Zehfuss, M. (2001). Constructivism and identity: A dangerous liaison. European Journal of International Relations, 7(3), 315–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066101007003002
Zyla, B. (2015). Sharing the burden?: NATO and its second-tier powers. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442668386
Zyla, B. (2016). Who is keeping the peace and who is free-riding? NATO middle powers and burden sharing, 1995–2001. International Politics, 53(3), 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2016.2
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kimball, A.L. (2023). Support for a Risk Management Model of Institutional Burdens. In: Beyond 2%—NATO Partners, Institutions & Burden Management. Canada and International Affairs. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22158-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22158-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-22157-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-22158-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)