Recapitulations and Contributions
The empirical research program does not by itself pretend to provide any conclusive answers to substantial research questions on the politics of caveats. The essence of the programmatic ambition is to reason directions on how to study and research a particular political phenomenon. The contribution of the empirical research program is assessed on its capacity to inspire, direct, and facilitate research: The program be judged on its capacity to reason precise conceptual constructs capable of distinguishing the phenomenon of caveats from adjacent phenomena and recognize different categories of caveats. The program assessed on the coherence and the capacity of the analytical framework to guide the selection of theory by which arguments are reasoned and empirical propositions deduced. The utility of the research program depends on the usefulness of the directions for the gathering and analyses of data while taking into account the particular attributes of the research field in question, as well as the ontological content of the analytical framework suggested. Finally, the empirical research program assessed on its capacity to inspire new and interesting research questions. The concluding chapter summarizes the several contributions of the programmatic effort, and discusses remaining shortcomings and challenges.
KeywordsForeign politics of caveats Empirical research program Conceptual clarification Analytical elaboration Theoretical reasoning Methodological research designs Foreign policy analysis
- Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
- Auerswald, D. P., & Saideman, S. M. (2014). NATO in Afghanistan: Fighting Together, Fighting Alone. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (Eds.). (2015). Process Tracing. From Metaphor to Analytical Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Bergen, P. L. (2011). The Longest War. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Brophy, J., & M. Fisera. (2010). National Caveats and Its Impact on the Army of the Czech Republic. http://user.unob.cz/fisera/files/clanky/National_Caveats_Short_Version_version_V_29JULY.pdf.
- Caldwell, B. J. (1991). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Criticisms and Conjectures. In G. Keith Shaw (Ed.), Economics, Culture, and Education. Essays in Honor of Mark Blaug (pp. 95–107). Aldershot: Elgar.Google Scholar
- Clark, W. K. (2001). Waging War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat. New York, NY: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
- Eckstein, H. (1975). Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of Political Science (Vol. 7, pp. 79–137). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Fermann, G. (Ed.). (2013). Utenrikspolitikk og norsk krisehåndtering. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademika. https://www.cappelendamm.no/_utenrikspolitikk-og-norsk-kriseh%C3%A5ndtering-gunnar-fermann-9788202378691.
- Fermann, G., & Inderberg, T. H. (2013). Norway and the 2005 Elektron Affair: Conflict of Competences and Competent Realpolitik. In T. G. Jakobsen (Ed.), War. An Introduction to Theories and Research on Collective Violence (pp. 373–402). New York, NY: Nova Science.Google Scholar
- Findlay, T. (2002). The Use of Force in UN Peace Operations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Frost-Nielsen, P. M. (2009). Rules of Engagement: En utenrikspolitisk case-analyse av den politiske kontrollen av norske kampfly i Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan 2002–2003. Master Thesis in Political Science, Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.Google Scholar
- Frost-Nielsen, P. M. (2011). Politisk kontroll av militær deltakelse i internasjonale operasjoner: Restriksjoner på bruk av norske kampfly i Afghanistan. Internasjonal Politikk, 69(3), 359–386.Google Scholar
- Frost-Nielsen, P. M. (2013). Norske kampfly i Afghanistan 2006. In G. Fermann (Ed.), Utenrikspolitikk og norsk krisehåndtering (pp. 267–298). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademika.Google Scholar
- Frost-Nielsen, P. M. (2016). Betingede forpliktelser. Nasjonale reservasjoner i militære koalisjonsoperasjoner. Ph.D. Dissertation in Political Science, Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.Google Scholar
- Frost-Nielsen, P. M. (2018, forthcoming). Bringing Military Conduct Out of the Shadow of Law: Towards a Holistic Understanding of Rules of Engagement (RoE). Journal of Military Ethics 17(1–2). Google Scholar
- George, A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Gerner, D. (1992). Foreign Policy Analysis. Exhilarating Eclecticism, Intriguing Enigmas. International Studies Notes, 18(1), 4–19.Google Scholar
- Hague, R., Harrop, M., & Breslin, S. (Eds.). (1998). Government and Politics: An Introduction. Basingstoke: MacMillan.Google Scholar
- Haney, P. J. (2002). Organizing for Foreign Policy Crises: Presidents, Advisers, and the Management of Decision-making. Michigan, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Harris, W. A. (1997). On “Scope Conditions” in Sociological Theories. Social and Economic Studies, 46(4), 123–127.Google Scholar
- Henriksen, D. (2007). NATO’s Gamble. Combining Diplomacy and Airpower in the Kosovo Crisis 1998–1999. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.Google Scholar
- Høiback, H. (2009). The Noble Art of Constructive Ambiguity. Oslo Files on Defence and Security, 3, 19–39.Google Scholar
- Ingesson, T. (2017, September 20). Trigger-Happy, Autonomous, and Disobedient: Nordbat 2 and Mission Command in Bosnia. The Strategy Bridge. https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-happy-autonomous-and-disobedient-nordbat-2-and-mission-command-in-bosnia.
- Johnson, G. J. (2004). Examining the SFOR Experience. NATO. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2004/Historic-Changes-Balkans/Examining-SFOR-experience/EN/index.htm.
- Jones, J. L. (2004, May 7–10). Prague to Istanbul: Ambition Versus Reality. Global Security: A Broader Concept for the 21st Century. Center for Strategic Decision Research 21st International Workshop on Global Security—Berlin. http://csdr.org/2004book/Gen_Jones.htm.
- Kay, S. (2013). No More Free-Riding: The Political Economy of Military Power and the Transatlantic Relationship. In J. H. Matlary & M. Petersson (Eds.), NATO’s European Allies—Military Capability and Political Will (pp. 97–120). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Levy, J. S. (2003). Political Psychology, and Foreign Policy. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 253–284). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Mackie, J. L. (1965). Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 4(2), 245–264.Google Scholar
- Mill, J. S. (2002 ). A System of Logic. Honolulu, HI: University Press of the Pacific.Google Scholar
- Moses, J. W., & Knutsen, T. L. (2012). Ways of Knowing. Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Science. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- NATO (2006, November 28). NATO Boosts Efforts in Afghanistan. http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2006/11-november/e1128a.htm.
- Pouliot, V. (2015). Practice Tracing. In A. Bennett & J. T. Checkel (Eds.), Process Tracing. From Metaphor to Analytical Tool (pp. 237–259). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Przeworsky, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
- Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (Eds.). (2009). Configurational Comparative Methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Related Techniques. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Rosenau, J. N. (1966). Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy. In R. B. Farrell (Ed.), Approaches to Comparative and International Politics (pp. 27–92). Evanston, IL: North-Western University Press.Google Scholar
- Ross, L., Lepper, M., & Ward, A. (2010). History of Social Psychology: Insights, Challenges, and Contributions to Theory and Application. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 3–50). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Saideman, S. M. (2018, April 3–7). Comments to Gunnar Fermann’s Paper on Coping with Caveats in Coalition Warfare: An Empirical Research Program. Presented in the panel on The Politics of Multinational Military Operations, 2018 International Studies Association Convention, San Francisco.Google Scholar
- Smelser, N. J. (1973). The Methodology in the Social Sciences. In D. P. Warwick & S. D. Osherson (Eds.), Comparative Research Methods (pp. 42–86). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Trønnes, O. (2012). Mapping and Explaining Norwegian Caveats in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2008. Master thesis in Political Science, Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.Google Scholar
- United Nations. (2000). Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (The “Brahimi Report”) (A/55/305-S/2000/809). New York, NY: United Nations.Google Scholar
- van der Meulen, J., & Kawano, H. (2008). Accidental Neighbours: Japanese and Dutch Troops in Iraq. In J. Soeters & P. Manigart (Eds.), Military Cooperation in Multinational Peace Operations: Managing Cultural Diversity and Crisis Response (pp. 166–179). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar