Suchergebnisse

"This book looks at the evolution of the role of Europe in US grand strategy, and unpacks how US administrations have instrumentalized this relationship in pursuit of extra-European objectives. The work considers geopolitical pressures in conjunction with leaders' strategic ideas to provide an account of the evolution of the role of Europe in the context of US grand strategy. Observers generally agree on the vague notion that Europe has been de-prioritized in Washington's external affairs. Against this background, the book makes the case that such de-prioritization of Europe in the context of US grand strategy also entails a reconceptualization of the transatlantic relationship, namely as a region featuring long-standing relationships that can at times be leveraged in pursuit of non-European goals. The United States has a long history of seeking European support or acquiescence for its role as the leader of the international system, but whereas during the Cold War Washington enlisted its European allies in a grand strategic struggle against a European power, more recently, it has sought to enlist European allies in extra-European struggles of different types. Thinking about the role of Europe in US grand strategy now requires new theoretical and empirical tools that allow for the recognition of this very fact. Accordingly, this book proposes that strategic ideas on the viability of international cooperation held within the White House crucially shape what - if any -- type of support the United States seeks from Europe on the global stage. In doing so, the book adds important nuance to other accounts proclaiming either the proverbial death of the transatlantic relationship or the eternal and unchanging nature thereof. This book will be of much interest to students of European security, US foreign policy, and International Relations"--

AbstractSince Washington announced its "rebalance to Asia" in 2011, debates about America's Europe strategy have centered on whether America's European allies could defend themselves without the USA. This debate has overlooked a crucial point: Washington's security commitment to Europe is not only about military power but also hinges on European acquiescence to Washington's politico-economic leadership position. US policymakers today increasingly view China as the main challenge to the latter. Accordingly, this article's driving hypothesis is that the more significance the USA assigns to its European allies in the context of its China agenda, the more it will, for better or worse, seek to maintain (some degree of) European security dependence on the USA. Case studies of the Europe strategies of the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, respectively, serve as a vehicle to probe the plausibility of this argument.

AbstractThis forum presents a snapshot of the current state of neoclassical realist theorizing. Its contributors are self-identified neoclassical realists who delineate their version of neoclassical realism (NCR), its scope, object of analysis, and theoretical contribution. From the standpoint of NCR, they contribute to and reflect on the "end of IR theory" debate. NCR has come under criticism for its supposed lack of theoretical structure and alleged disregard for paradigmatic boundaries. This raises questions as to the nature of this (theoretical) beast. Is NCR a midrange, progressive research program? Can it formulate a grand theory informed by metatheoretical assumptions? Is it a reformulation of neorealism or classical realism or an eclectic mix of different paradigms? The forum contributors argue that NCR, in different variants, holds considerable promise to investigate foreign policy, grand strategy and international politics. They interrogate the interaction of international and domestic politics and consider normative implications as well as the sources and cases of NCR beyond the West. In so doing, they speak to theorizing and the utility of the theoretical enterprise in IR more generally.

This forum presents a snapshot of the current state of neoclassical realist theorizing. Its contributors are self-identified neoclassical realists who delineate their version of neoclassical realism (NCR), its scope, object of analysis, and theoretical contribution. From the standpoint of NCR, they contribute to and reflect on the "end of IR theory" debate. NCR has come under criticism for its supposed lack of theoretical structure and alleged disregard for paradigmatic boundaries. This raises questions as to the nature of this (theoretical) beast. Is NCR a midrange, progressive research program? Can it formulate a grand theory informed by metatheoretical assumptions? Is it a reformulation of neorealism or classical realism or an eclectic mix of different paradigms? The forum contributors argue that NCR, in different variants, holds considerable promise to investigate foreign policy, grand strategy and international politics. They interrogate the interaction of international and domestic politics and consider normative implications as well as the sources and cases of NCR beyond the West. In so doing, they speak to theorizing and the utility of the theoretical enterprise in IR more generally.