Suchergebnisse

The European Union (EU) has modest but promising capacities to assist member states overwhelmed by disaster through its Civil Protection Mechanism. The EU also routinely sends civil and military missions to hotspots outside EU territory. But these capacities do not suffice in the face of transboundary crises: threats that cross geographical and policy borders within the Union. Examples include epidemics, financial crises, floods, and cyber terrorism. Nation states cannot cope with these threats without international collaboration. In this article, we explore the EU's efforts to develop transboundary crisis management capacities. We describe these budding capacities, explain their policy origins, and explore their future potential. ; AuthorCount:3;

In recent years, the European continent has witnessed a substantial number of 'transboundary crises' - crises that cross geographical borders and affect multiple policy domains. Nation states find it hard to deal with such crises by themselves. International cooperation, thus, becomes increasingly important, but it is not clear what shape or form that cooperation should take. This article explores the growing role of the European Union (EU) in managing transboundary crises. More specifically, it reflects on the different ways in which the expanding contours of the EU's emerging crisis capacity can be organized. Using three 'performative dimensions' - sense-making, coordination, and legitimacy - the article discusses the possible advantages and disadvantages of a decentralized, network model and compares it with a more centralized, lead-agency model. It concludes that the current network model is a logical outcome of the punctuated and fragmentary process through which EU crisis management capacities have been created. It also notes that the shortcomings of this model may necessitate elements of a lead-agency model. Such 'agencification' of networks for transboundary crisis management may well lead to a hybrid model that is uniquely suited for the peculiar organizational and political creature that the EU is. Adapted from the source document.

If the world of crisis is changing, it is crucial to understand how policymakers perceive these new, transboundary threats. This article explores how policymakers made sense of such crises in 81 cases. The findings indicate that how much time urgency and surprise the policymakers perceived accompanied a transboundary threat helped to shape the nature of their decision‐making process and how they managed the crisis. The data suggest that researchers and practitioners can gain an idea of how a crisis is likely to be managed by ascertaining how policymakers are viewing the triggering event.

The European Union (EU) has modest but promising capacities to assist member states overwhelmed by disaster through its Civil Protection Mechanism. The EU also routinely sends civil and military missions to hotspots outside EU territory. But these capacities do not suffice in the face of transboundary crises: threats that cross geographical and policy borders within the Union. Examples include epidemics, financial crises, floods, and cyber terrorism. Nation states cannot cope with these threats without international collaboration. In this article, we explore the EU's efforts to develop transboundary crisis management capacities. We describe these budding capacities, explain their policy origins, and explore their future potential.

In recent years, crises have become increasingly transboundary in nature. This exploratory paper investigates whether and how the transboundary dimensions of crises such as pandemics, cyber attacks and prolonged critical infrastructure failure accentuate the challenges that public and private authorities confront in the face of urgent threats. We explore the transboundary dimensions of crises and disasters, discuss how an increase in 'transboundedness' affects traditional crisis management challenges and investigate what administrative mechanisms are needed to deal with these compounded challenges. Building on lessons learned from past crises and disasters, our goal is to stimulate a discussion among crisis management scholars about the political‐administrative capabilities required to deal with 'transboundary' crises.

Applying a leadership–task perspective within the context of the Greek sovereign debt crisis (2009–12), the study finds that the imperatives of short‐term crisis management conflict with the ability of Greek leaders to effectively implement long‐term reforms. Electoral gains, crisis duration, centralized decision‐making, and the degree of external actor involvement explain the choice between credible response and effective recovery. Despite beneficial effects, the activation of external stakeholders ultimately weakens the impetus for reform. The study has implications for political leadership and EU crisis management.

AbstractSetbacks—unanticipated, unwanted, and often sudden checks on moving forward—are common in crisis prevention. Managing setbacks, however, is rarely discussed. Even less discussed is the central role that setback management can play in preventing transboundary crises across interdependent critical infrastructures for electricity, water, transportation, and financial services. With a focus on the ongoing financial crisis and on strategies for resilience and anticipation, the article draws out implications for crisis prevention as the first, rather than last, line of defense in managing future crises.