Abstract
Alcaro argues that the incipient multipolarity is not incompatible with the Western-supported liberal order, as even the most restive among the non-Western powers, such as China and Russia, have a stake in its endurance. He maintains that the transatlantic ability to shape security governance will diminish if relations among great powers become conflictual, largely because of Europe’s modest hard power and lack of strategic cohesion. On the contrary, if centripetal dynamics prevail, the Europeans can make use not only of their individual assets to address functional threats, such as terrorism and regional crises, but also exploit the soft power potential of the European Union, whereby United States power gains greater outreach and impact.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alcaro, R. (2009). The global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism: Big potential, limited impact? The International Spectator, 44(1), 99–112.
Alcaro, R. (2011). Learning from a troubled experience: Transatlantic lessons from the nuclear standoff with Iran. The International Spectator, 46(4), 115–136.
Alcaro, R., & Alessandri, E. (2010). Engaging Russia: Prospect for a long-term European security compact. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15(2), 191–207.
Alcaro, R., & Bassiri Tabrizi, A. (2014). Europe and Iran’s nuclear issue: The labours and sorrows of a supporting actor. The International Spectator, 49(3), 14–20.
Bellamy, A. J. (2011). Global politics and the responsibility to protect: From words to deeds. New York: Routledge.
Biscop, S. (2005). The European security strategy: A global agenda for positive power. Burlington/Aldershot/Hants: Ashgate.
Bouchard, C., Peterson, J. & Tocci, N. (Eds.). (2014). Multilateralism in the 21st Century: Europe’s Quest for Effectiveness. London and New York: Routledge.
Brzezinski, Z. (2007). Second chance: Three presidents and the crisis of American superpower. New York: Basic Books.
Daalder, I. H. (2003). The end of atlanticism. Survival, 52(2), 147–165.
Dobbins, J., et al. (2003). America’s role in nation-building. From Germany to Iraq. Santa Monica/Arlington/Pittsburgh: RAND.
Dobbins, J., et al. (2005). The UN’s role in nation-building. From the Congo to Iraq. Santa Monica/Arlington/Pittsburgh: RAND.
Dobbins, J., et al. (2008). Europe’s role in nation-building. From the Balkans to the Congo. Santa Monica/Arlington/Pittsburgh: RAND.
Doyle, M. W. (2011). International ethics and the responsibility to protect. International Studies Review, 13(1), 72–84.
Duchêne, F. (1973). The European community and the uncertainties of interdependence. In M. Kohnstamm & W. Hager (Eds.), A nation writ large? Foreign policy problems before the European community (pp. 1–21). London: Macmillan.
Feng, Z., Gao, Z., Jiang, Y., Zhao, H., Sun, B., Ouyang, L., Tang, L., Shi, G., & Huangying (2009). China’s new security perceptions and practice. In L. Peral (Ed.), Global security in a multipolar world (Chaillot paper 118, pp. 31–47). Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.
Gaddis, J. (2005). Strategies of containment: A critical appraisal of American national security policy during the Cold War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ganguly, S. (2014). India in the liberal order. In T. Flockhart et al. (Eds.), Liberal order in a post-Western world (pp. 83–94). Washington, DC: Transatlantic Academy.
Gegout, C. (2000). The quint: Acknowledging the existence of a big four-US Directoire at the heart of the European Union’s foreign policy decision-making process. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 331–344.
Goldgeier, J. M. (1999). Not whether but when. The U.S. decision to enlarge NATO. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Hill, C. (1993). The capability-expectations gap, or conceptualising Europe’s international role. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(3), 305–328.
Hill, C. (1998). Convergence, divergence and dialectics: National foreign policies and the CFSP. In J. Zielonka (Ed.), Paradoxes of European foreign policy (pp. 35–52). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Hill, F., & Gaddy, C. (2013). Mr Putin. An operative in the Kremlin. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Howorth, J. (2014). European security post-Libya and post-Ukraine: In search of core leadership’ In N. Tocci (Ed.), Imagining Europe. Towards a more united and effective EU (pp. 133–162). Rome: Edizioni Nuova Cultura.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2012). Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2014a). The illusion of geopolitics: The enduring power of the liberal order. Foreign Affairs, 93(3), 80–90.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2014b) (Ed.). Power, order, and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Indyk, M. S., Lieberthal, K. G., & O’Hanlon, M. E. (2013). Bending history. Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Janning, J. (2005). Leadership coalitions and change: The role of states in the European Union. International Affairs, 81(4), 821–833.
Jones, B. (2014). Still ours to lead. America, rising powers, and the tension between rivalry and restraint. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Kagan, R. (2012). The world America made. New York: Vintage Book.
Kaplan, L. S. (2004). NATO divided, NATO united: The evolution of an alliance. Westport: Praeger.
Keohane, R. O., Nye, J. S., & Hoffmann, S. (Eds.). (1993). After the Cold War. International institutions and state strategies in Europe 1989–1991. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Krauthammer, C. (1990/1991). The unipolar moment. Foreign Affairs, 70(1), 23–33.
Krauthammer, C. (2003). The unipolar moment revisited. The National Interest, 70, 5–17.
Kreps, S. (2010). Elite consensus as a determinant of alliance cohesion: Why public opinion hardly matters for NATO-led operations in Afghanistan. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6(3), 200–201.
Kumar, R. (2009). India’s potential role in a new global security consensus. In L. Peral (Ed.), Global security in a multipolar world (Chaillot paper 118, pp. 49–66). Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.
Kupchan, C. A. (2012). No one’s world. The West, the rising rest, and the coming global turn. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lagadec, E. (2012). Transatlantic relations in the 21st century. London: Routledge.
Laïdi, Z. (2012). Limited achievements: Obama’s foreign policy. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Laїdi, Z. (2014). Towards a post-hegemonic world: The multipolar threat to the multilateral order. International Politics, 51(3), 350–365.
Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.
Manners, I., & Whitman, R. G. (2000). Conclusion. In I. Manners & R. G. Whitman (Eds.), The foreign policies of European Union member states (pp. 243–271). Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.
Matthews, M. W. (2008). Tracking the emergence of a new international norm: The responsibility to protect and the crisis in Darfur. Boston College and Comparative Law Review, 31, 142.
McCalla, R. B. (1996). Nato’s persistence after the Cold War. International Organization, 46(4), 445–475.
Mead, W. R. (2014). The return of geopolitics: The revenge of the revisionist powers. Foreign Affairs, 93(3), 69–79.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: Norton and Norton.
Menon, A. (2014). The JCMS annual review lecture: Divided and declining? Europe in a changing world. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(Issue Supplement 1), 5–24.
Merlingen, M., & Ostrauskaite, R. (2006). European Union peacebuilding and policing. Abbingdon/New York: Routledge.
Naìm, M. (2009). Minilateralism: The magic number to get real international action. Foreign Policy, 173, 136–137.
Nugent, N. (Ed.). (2004). European Union enlargement. Houndmills/Basingshire/Hapshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nuttall, S. J. (2000). European foreign policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ortega, M. (Ed.). (2005). The European Union and the United Nations: Partners in effective multilateralism (Chaillot paper 78). Paris: Institute for Security Studies, European Union.
Peterson, J., & Steffenson, R. (2009). Transatlantic institutions: Can partnership be engineered? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11(1), 25–45.
Peterson, J., Doherty, R., Van Cutsem, M., Wallace, H., Epstein, R., Burwell, F., & Quinlan, J. P. (2005). Review of the framework for relations between the European Union and the United States—An independent study. Brussels: European Commission.
Potter, W., & Shields, J. M. (1997). Dismantling the Cold War: U.S. and NIS perspectives on the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ronzitti, N. (Ed.). (2009, March). Coordinating global and regional efforts to combat WMD terrorism (IAI Quaderni English series 15). http://www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni/coordinating-global-and-regional-efforts-combat-wmd-terrorism
Rosamond, B. (2014). Three ways of speaking Europe to the world: Markets, peace, cosmopolitan duties and the EU’s normative power. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16, 133–148.
Ruggie, J. G. (1994). Third try at world order? America and multilateralism after the Cold War. Political Science Quarterly, 109(4), 553–570.
Ruggie, J. G. (1996). Winning the peace: America and world order in the new era. New York: Columbia University Press.
Schmidt, P. (Ed.). (2008). A hybrid relationship: Transatlantic security cooperation beyond NATO. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Schwegmann, C. (2003). Die Jugoslawien-Kontaktgruppe in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Schwegmann, C. (2005). Kontaktgruppen und EU-3 Verhandlungen (SWP Aktuell 62).
Simon, L., & Fiott, D. (2014). Europe after the US Pivot. Orbis, 58(3), 413–428.
Smith, H. (2002). European Union foreign policy. What it is and what it does. London: Pluto.
Sorj, B. (2014). Brazil and the liberal order in the 21st century. In T. Flockhart et al. (Eds.), Liberal order in a post-Western world (pp. 71–82). Washington, DC: Transatlantic Academy.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (2014, April). Trends in military expenditure, SIPRI fact sheet. http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=476
Wallander, C. A. (2000). Institutional assets and adaptability: NATO after the Cold War. International Organization, 54(4), 705–736.
Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5–41.
Winner, A. C. (2005). The proliferation security initiative: The new face of interdiction. The Washington Quarterly, 28(2), 129–143.
Wrobel, P. (2009). Brazil’s approach to security in the 21st century. In L. Peral (Ed.), Global security in a multipolar world (EUISS Chaillot paper 118, pp. 15–30). Paris: EUISS.
Xiang, L. (2014). China and the international “liberal” (Western) order. In T. Flockhart et al. (Eds.), Liberal order in a post-Western world (pp. 107–120). Washington, DC: Transatlantic Academy.
Yost, D. S. (1998). NATO transformed. The alliance’s new role in international security. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace Press.
Zielonka, I. (1998). Explaining Euro-paralysis: Why Europe is unable to act in international politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alcaro, R. (2016). The Paradoxes of the Liberal Order: Transatlantic Relations and Security Governance. In: Alcaro, R., Peterson, J., Greco, E. (eds) The West and the Global Power Shift. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57486-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57486-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57485-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57486-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)