Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this article is to interpret the political developments in Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s and at the same time to discuss the use of theory in such "macro-interpretations" of the present changes. First, elements of the "process of Europeanization" are identified, followed by a discussion on how "world-system theory", "neorealism" and "the school of interdependence" might be used in the understanding of the process of Europeanization. The discussion focuses especially on the concepts of "security complex" and "regime". Some of the main theoretical deficits in the use of theories are pointed out. It is claimed that we need a better understanding of changes in power structures and improved concepts for analysis on the "middle" level between structural-level and state-level analysis. On the basis of the theoretical discussion the article presents an interpretation of the present changes in Europe. The interpretation is based on reflections on the kind of structural changes which are taking place in the present international system. It is claimed that there are tendencies which form a new international regime for overall security and internal change in Europe. The European Community is seen as adopting an increasing role in this all-European process. The main obstacles to such a new stability regime in Europe are seen as a possible setback in the Soviet Union and/or a destabilizing revitalization of the German problem.

In a response to comments made in a symposium on a book edited by & Branner Kelstrup, Denmark's Policy towards Europe after 1945: History, Theory and Options (2000), the authors acknowledge that, despite their efforts to bridge the gap in English-language analyses of Danish-European policy by producing a "rich" & detailed work, shortcomings are readily visible, as correctly noted in the reviewers' criticisms. While concurring with Einhorn's doubts about the necessity & unavoidability of foreign policy theory, issue is taken with his hard distinctions between European vs Danish interests. Flockhart's "ideational approach" is interesting, but neither useful, nor a good replacement for a combination of alternative approaches. Although she challenged the non-inclusion of her research, Ingebritsen's comments are generally driven by misunderstandings & misreadings. The authors conclude with a restatement of the internal contradictions in current Danish European policy, stressing the importance of history, theory, & options. J. Sadler

International Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration focuses on the roles of community, power and security, within the European Union. It features contributions from highly respected international scholars, and covers subjects such as:· sovereignty and European integration · the EU and the politics of migration· the internationalisation of military security · the EU as a security actor · money, finance and power · the quest for legitimacy with regards to EU enlargement.

Waltz, K.: The United States and the new world order. - S.13-25. Hansen, B.: Nuclear weapons and European integration. - S.26-47. Kaufmann, S.: The Russian problem in European security. - S.48-68. Friis, L.: Germany as a soft great power? - S.69-98. Petersen, N.: Adapting to change: Danish security after the Cold War. - S.99-116. Hansen, L.: NATO's new discourse. - S.117-134. Oestergaard, U.: The return of empires? - S.135-171. Kelstrup, M.: Societal aspects of European security. - S.172-199. Petersen, I. D.: Victims of globalization. - S.220-221. Waever, O.: What is security? - S.222-254