Search results

Britz, M.: Introduction : Strategic culture and participation in international military operations. - S. 1-21

Taking its departure in the concept of strategic culture, this book answers the question of why European countries decide either to participate or not in international military operations. This volume examines strategic culture and its relation to justifications of decisions made by France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom, with regard to four different operations: Operation Enduring Freedom/ISAF in Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq, Operation Unified Protector in Libya, and EU Navfor/Atalanta outside Somalia. In this work, the authors closely analyse the role of civil-military relations with regard to decisions about participation. What is the role of the armed forces in the political process leading up to the decision? What is their advisory capacity in shaping the mission? Employing a theoretical framework of strategic culture, including aspects of civil military relations, this innovative volume seeks to answer these questions. This text is essential reading for academics, researchers and students of international relations, foreign policy, war studies or civil-military relations. Malena Britz is Assistant Professor in Political Science at the Swedish Defence University. Her areas of research include different aspects of European security policy, Europeanisation, and Nordic co-operation. She has studied very different aspects of security policy from defence industry policy, development of EU security and defence, and international aspects of civil protection.

European integration has increased to encompass security-related policies. One such policy is defense industry policy, which traditionally has been a national concern rooted in defense and security policy. Efforts have been made since the 1990s to create a European defense industry market. However, there have been different ideas of how this goal should be achieved or which model for state—industry relations the market should rest on. Using Sweden to illustrate the development, this article argues that for the Europeanization of defense industry policy, marketization has played a vital role. Building on official documents and interviews, the article analyzes the efforts to create a European defense industry market, marketization of Swedish defense industry policy, and the increased interaction between Swedish and European defense industry policy processes. The analysis also shows domestic challenges that the processes of Europeanization and marketization have brought about.

Den här artikeln identifierar och analyserar tre olika reaktioner, i artikeln benämnda »strategisk respons», på amerikansk strategisk återhållsamhet sedan 2017 och mot bakgrund av Brexit: »Liberal övervintring», »Ett starkare Europa» och »En bredare koalition». Analysen kopplar strategisk respons, strategiskt aktörskap och strategisk autonomi och leder till två slutsatser: För det första att Brexit snararare har gynnat än hindrat det europeiska säkerhets- och försvarssamarbetet, såväl inom ramen för EU som mellan EU och stater som står utanför EU, däribland Storbritannien. För det andra att den framväxande säkerhetsordningen innebär nya och annorlunda förutsättningar för det säkerhets- och försvarspolitiska samarbetet i Europa, inte minst i Norden.
Abstract in English:American Strategic Restraint and European Strategic Response: Three Forms of Strategic Response Post-BrexitThis paper describes and analyses three types of European strategic response since the year 2017 by European governments and the EU in response to US strategic restraint and conditioned by Brexit. The three types of response we label "liberal wintering", "a stronger Europe" and "a broader coalition". The paper links strategic response to strategic agency and strategic autonomy leading on to two main conclusions: First, that Brexit has done more to promote than to restrain the development of European common security and defence, both within the EU and when involving nations outside of the EU, such as the UK. Second, that the new broader European security and defence structures open the door to new forms of cooperation, for example between the Nordic countries.

The development of European Union (EU) civil protection cooperation highlights important issues in the debate on the internal—external security nexus. It points to the increased transnationalization of threats usually assigned to the field of 'internal' security, but it also presents researchers with a puzzle: despite the relatively rapid development of civil protection cooperation, there is still substantial disagreement among the EU member states as to how it should continue to develop. Applying an analytical framework based on neo-institutional organization theory and the study of organizational 'fields', this article explores two questions: What is the institutional basis for member states' diverging positions on the future direction of EU civil protection? and How may these positions affect the current development of EU civil protection? Our analysis draws upon empirical evidence from civil protection practice in Spain, Sweden and the EU, including official documents in the form of bills and laws, policy papers and elite interviews. We find that the basis for member states' diverging positions on the future of EU civil protection is rooted in conflicting national institutional logics of civil protection. No logic has become dominant at the EU level, suggesting that as long as multiple institutional logics continue to coexist, disagreement on the future development of European level civil protection cooperation will persist.

In this article we argue that organizations & organizing activities lie at the very heart of the European integration process. Cross-pillar issues require an analytical framework that allows one to study the interplay between the market & security spheres of European integration, including how supranational & intergovernmental actors, private & public, interact with each other. By using sociological institutionalism & its notion of how organizations are institutionalized, we analyze the organizational complexity in the multifaceted policy area of armaments, without losing theoretical clarity. 46 References. Adapted from the source document.