Recapitulations and Contributions

  • Gunnar FermannEmail author


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.


Foreign politics of caveats Empirical research program Conceptual clarification Analytical elaboration Theoretical reasoning Methodological research designs Foreign policy analysis 


  1. Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Auerswald, D. P. (2004). Inward Bound: Domestic Institutions and Military Conflicts. International Organization, 53(3), 469–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auerswald, D. P., & Saideman, S. M. (2014). NATO in Afghanistan: Fighting Together, Fighting Alone. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (Eds.). (2015). Process Tracing. From Metaphor to Analytical Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bergen, P. L. (2011). The Longest War. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brophy, J., & M. Fisera. (2010). National Caveats and Its Impact on the Army of the Czech Republic.
  7. 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
  8. Checkel, J. T. (2006). Tracing Causal Mechanisms. International Studies Review, 8(2), 362–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, W. K. (2001). Waging War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat. New York, NY: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  10. Deni, J. R. (2004). The NATO Rapid Deployment Corps: Alliance Doctrine and Force Structure. Contemporary Security Policy, 25(3), 498–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Fermann, G. (Ed.). (2013). Utenrikspolitikk og norsk krisehåndtering. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademika.
  13. 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
  14. Findlay, T. (2002). The Use of Force in UN Peace Operations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Frost-Nielsen, P. M. (2017). Conditional Commitments: Why States Use Caveats to Reserve Their Efforts in Military Coalition Operations. Contemporary Security Policy, 38(3), 371–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. George, A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gerner, D. (1992). Foreign Policy Analysis. Exhilarating Eclecticism, Intriguing Enigmas. International Studies Notes, 18(1), 4–19.Google Scholar
  23. Gerring, J. (1999). What Makes a Concept Good? A Critical Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences. Polity, 31(3), 357–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hague, R., Harrop, M., & Breslin, S. (Eds.). (1998). Government and Politics: An Introduction. Basingstoke: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  25. Hall, J. R. (2007). Historicity and Socio-historical Research. In W. Outhwaite & S. P. Turner (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology (pp. 82–101). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Harris, W. A. (1997). On “Scope Conditions” in Sociological Theories. Social and Economic Studies, 46(4), 123–127.Google Scholar
  28. Henriksen, D. (2007). NATO’s Gamble. Combining Diplomacy and Airpower in the Kosovo Crisis 1998–1999. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.Google Scholar
  29. Høiback, H. (2009). The Noble Art of Constructive Ambiguity. Oslo Files on Defence and Security, 3, 19–39.Google Scholar
  30. Ingesson, T. (2017, September 20). Trigger-Happy, Autonomous, and Disobedient: Nordbat 2 and Mission Command in Bosnia. The Strategy Bridge.
  31. 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.
  32. 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
  33. Koschut, S. (2014). Transatlantic Conflict Management Inside-Out: The Impact of Domestic Norms on Regional Security Practices. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 27(2), 339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kreps, S. (2008). When Does the Mission Determine the Coalition? The Logic of Multilateral Intervention and the Case of Afghanistan. Security Studies, 17(3), 531–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Program. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative Politics and Comparative Method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lijphart, A. (1975). The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research. Comparative Political Studies, 8(2), 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levy, J. S. (1996). Loss Aversion, Framing, and Bargaining: The Implications of Prospects Theory for International Conflict. International Political Science Review, 17(2), 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levy, J. S. (1997). Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations. International Studies Quarterly, 41(1), 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Levy, J. S. (2008). Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lombardi, B. (2008). All Politics is Local: Germany, the Bundeswehr, and Afghanistan. International Journal, 63(3), 587–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mackie, J. L. (1965). Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 4(2), 245–264.Google Scholar
  44. Marten, K. (2007). Statebuilding and Force: The Proper Role of Foreign Militaries. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 1(2), 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mello, P. A. (2014). Democratic Participation in Armed Conflict. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meyer, T. (2013). Flipping the Switch: Combat, State-Building, and Junior Officers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Security Studies, 22(2), 222–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mill, J. S. (2002 [1891]). A System of Logic. Honolulu, HI: University Press of the Pacific.Google Scholar
  48. Moses, J. W., & Knutsen, T. L. (2012). Ways of Knowing. Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Science. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. NATO (2006, November 28). NATO Boosts Efforts in Afghanistan.
  50. Noetzel, T., & Rid, T. (2009). Germany’s Options in Afghanistan. Survival, 51(5), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Noetzel, T., & Schreer, B. (2009). Does a Multi-tier NATO Matter? The Atlantic Alliance and the Process of Strategic Change. International Affairs, 85(2), 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Platt, J. (2007). Case Study. In W. Outhwaite & S. P. Turner (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology (pp. 102–127). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Przeworsky, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  56. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  57. Richter, A., & Webb, N. J. (2014). Can Smart Defense Work? A Suggested Approach to Increasing Risk- and Burden-sharing Within NATO. Defense and Security Analysis, 30(4), 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (Eds.). (2009). Configurational Comparative Methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Related Techniques. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Ringsmose, J. (2010). NATO Burden-Sharing Redux: Continuity and Change After the Cold War. Contemporary Security Policy, 31(2), 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. Ruffa, C., Dandeker, C., & Vennesson, P. (2013). Soldiers Drawn Into Politics? The Influence of Tactics in Civil–Military Relations. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 24(2), 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Saideman, S. M., & Auerswald, D. P. (2012). Comparing Caveats. International Studies Quarterly, 56(1), 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sky, E. (2007). Increasing ISAF’s Impact on Stability in Afghanistan. Defense and Security Analysis, 23(1), 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Thomas, G. (2011). A Typology of the Case Study in Social Science Following a Review of Definition, Discourse, and Structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 511–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. Young, T.-D. (2003). The Revolution in Military Affairs and Coalition Operations: Problem Areas and Solutions. Defense and Security Analysis, 19(2), 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations