Read e-book Perceptions and Policy in Transatlantic Relations: Prospective Visions from the US and Europe

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Perceptions and Policy in Transatlantic Relations: Prospective Visions from the US and Europe file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Perceptions and Policy in Transatlantic Relations: Prospective Visions from the US and Europe book. Happy reading Perceptions and Policy in Transatlantic Relations: Prospective Visions from the US and Europe Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Perceptions and Policy in Transatlantic Relations: Prospective Visions from the US and Europe at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Perceptions and Policy in Transatlantic Relations: Prospective Visions from the US and Europe Pocket Guide.

Google Scholar Citations. Scopus Citations. Check if you have access via personal or institutional login. Log in Register. Export citation Request permission. References Hide All.

Recommend this journal. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. Who would you like to send this to? Optional message. Altmetric attention score. Loading metrics The Transatlantic Economic Partnership TEP is a follow on of the NTA, including multilateral and bilateral elements to address technical barriers to trade and stimulate further multilateral liberalization by joining forces on international trade issues.

An innovative aspect of the proposal is to integrate labour, business, environmental and consumer issues into the process [19]. After September 11, the US considers the EU as one of the centres of global power with which the US has to develop an active agenda for cooperation [20]. Against this positive background, now is turn to deal with the differences, which certainly have recently grown in number to the extent that more than one analyst have predicted looming prospects for transatlantic divide [22].

Differences between the US and Europe have always existed. Since the creation of the Transatlantic Alliance in , differences have emerged regularly: To start with, the US negative to include an automatic defence guarantee in the Washington Treaty, or US suspicion to the European integration in the fifties, or the adoption of the strategy of flexible response in the sixties, or American calling for burden-sharing in the seventies, or the Strategic Defence Initiative and euro-missiles in the eighties, etc.

Someone could argue that now the number of disputes is increasing environment, International Criminal Court ICC , trade disputes, missile defence, etc. Taking into account the growing volume and interdependence of the transatlantic relationship, one could contra-argue that the growing number of disputes is a normal development.

During the Cold War, the magnet was a very definite threat, the Soviet threat. But the present lack of visible reference is only apparent, because even those who see a transatlantic divide recognise the existence of a magnet, although now it is no material, but immaterial and subtler: a community of shared values [23] , which has endured two world wars, has prevent the third one from being declared and now is challenged by the different perceptions on how to deal new and elusive threats, the terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The emergence of the EU as a European actor with global projection is changing the transatlantic relationship. In , Europe assumed its weakness, vulnerability and the need of a non-European leadership [24]. Now, more than fifty years after, Europe is not weak, with an emerging European project, is less vulnerable, as the Soviet threat has disappeared, and continues to accept a non-European leadership, as reflected by the US commitment to Europe, but not in an unconditional way, as Europe wants to have a voice.

As a whole, all these qualitative changes are reasons for suggesting that a renewing of the transatlantic relationship is taking place [25] , which in turn will bear influence on the NATO-EU relationship. The limitations of this model have lead to some analysts to suggest some forms to renew the transatlantic bargain in a more formal way, including legal instruments such as a treaty [26]. According to Berlin 96 decisions to develop the European Security and Defence Identity ESDI within NATO, NATO support to the WEU was based on the appropriate military planning to create militarily coherent and effective forces capable of operating under the political control and strategic direction of the WEU, through theidentification, within the Alliance, of the types of separable but not separate capabilities, assets and support assets, as well as, in order to prepare for WEU-led operations, separable but not separate HQs, HQ elements and command positions, which could be made available, subject to decision by the NAC, and the elaboration of appropriate multinational European command arrangements within NATO, able to prepare, support, command and conduct the WEU-led operations.

In other words, WEU Associate Members were granted the participation in the operation decision-making.


  • strategic and international studies;
  • Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung - detail - International Reports?
  • European Foreign Affairs Review - Kluwer Law Online.
  • Our Organization.
  • Navigation!
  • China’s Resurgence and Its Effects on Transatlantic Relations | The Dahrendorf Forum.

The analysis in this Section is based on the hypothesis that security and defence policies both in NATO and the EU will continue within intergovernmental parameters. Coming from intergovernmental grounds, the next question to address is the differential membership and policy orientations concerning NATO-EU relationship in both organisations.


  • Navigation.
  • The Story of the Second World War, The Allies Conquer (1942-1945)!
  • Transatlantic Relations in the Trump Era!
  • Beneath The Peaks.
  • Transatlantic Security Cooperation Toward | The German Marshall Fund of the United States.
  • People also read.

NATO and EU are organisations different in many aspects, and one of the most visible dissimilarity is the differential membership. To help the reader to follow the analysis, Annex 1 includes a Membership Table, updated to the recent decisions on enlargement. Column 1 includes the American Allies, Column 2 includes the common membership cluster, Column 3 includes the differential membership, divided into two sub-clusters Column 3 for non-NATO countries and Column 4 for non-EU countries.

Countries in italics stand for future membership.

Of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung

For this reason, Denmark is included in both Columns 2 and 4. The reader can appreciate the complexity of this issue just noting the number and variety of comments on the Column remarks. First, the block of common membership is going to increase dramatically by , almost twice, from 10 to 18, and to 20 and more after This effect could be summarised as a convergence within both organisations: a greater Europeanisation in the Alliance and a greater Atlanticism in the EU.

Second, the block of EU non-NATO countries neutral or non-militarily aligned countries will continue to be roughly the same.

go site

Common Foreign and Security Policy and External Relations

Turkey continues in her roadmap to membership. The particular geographic position of Iceland, far away from mainland Europe and vital during the Cold War, will continue to bear influence on this country approach to the EU. The case of Norway is different, as this Nordic country is physically attached to the continent and continues to be formally absent of the EU. The first remark is that the inclusion in one or another cluster does not preclude the existence of different national perceptions between countries within the same cluster.

Unfortunately, this is the rule. As mentioned in Section 3. Looking to the future, the question is whether NATO and EU enlargements are going to reduce the stress and friction between these two different conceptions. Or the enlargements will increase the number of different views and the entrenchment in national positions, hindering the emergence of such a common understanding? Looking at the strong core of common membership that is going to emerge, the more likely answer is a beneficial influence.

The next question coming out of hand is how do the enlargements are going to influence the decision-making process in both organisations. Enlargement will create internal management problems both in NATO and the EU and perhaps lengthy discussions will be needed to arrive to a consensus, but according to the previous paragraphs, the enlargement should not be an obstacle for decisions. In order not to dilute the enlargement strategic gain with a functional loss, both organisations should take advantage of the enlargement convergence for wider cooperation [34]. In NATO, the presence of a Member with a leading role helps to integrate the political wills and get a consensus.

In the EU, in the absence of a member with a leading role and with a more complex balance of power and influence within the Council, the decision-making foundation rests in the European Council, where the guidelines and strategies are defined. This approach continues to shape present US Administration thinking towards European defence policy. The US position regarding the development of a defence dimension in the EU has to be considered taking into account the importance of the relationship between the US and Europe.

Nevertheless, the Introduction of Section 3 shows that despite this cooperation and good relations, there are problems and challenges. All relationships have their rough moments, and the transatlantic alliance is no different. Chapter VIII provides with some clues. These two sentences seem to enclose some contradiction: on the one hand, from the first statement it could be deduced that the approach of ad hoc arrangements is privileged; but on the other hand, from the second statement it could be deduced just the opposite idea in favour of permanent arrangements.

Starting over again

However, from an analysis in depth of the New Strategy it can be deduced that there is no such a contradiction. In fact, both permanent and ad hoc arrangements are complementary tools in the new American strategy. The underlying ideas are first, that ad hoc arrangements will not be constituted if a permanent arrangement can deal with the mission, and second, the ad hoc arrangements will be constituted and will run based on the benefits provided by permanent arrangements. The immediate example is Afghanistan, where American and Europeans are conducting operations on an ad hoc basis, but only because they are able to operate together thanks to the common understanding, procedures and doctrines worked within NATO.

In addition, under the point of view of a global actor, the recourse to ad hoc arrangements may be indicated in areas where permanent arrangements cannot be used or do not exist [37].


  • Article Metrics!
  • Death and Biker Gangs (Grave New World Book 2).
  • Social Ads Exposed.
  • $40 to $100 No Limit Texas Holdem Poker Cash Games:: Beating the rake at low limit cash games.
  • Perceptions and Policy in Transatlantic Relations;
  • Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung - detail - International Reports?

Such an option does not give grounds to say that permanent arrangements are useless and much less that they are death. Just the opposite, as ad hoc arrangements might help the US to win wars, however they are unlikely to provide to win the peace in many situations, as this task requires long endurance, which can only be provided through military and non-military assistance coming from permanent arrangements as NATO or the EU [38].

On the other hand, Europe is the main economic partner of Russia and this is reflected on the heavy agendas of the EU-Russia Summits, which include security and foreign policy issues. In this way, Russia support to the EU would be included in her foreign policy objective of promoting a greater multilateralism in international relations, and in addition, the P5 seat in the Security Council would provide Russia with some political leverage in a EU ESDP operation. With the exception of some flashes, such as a document for the participation of Russia in the EU crisis management operations approved during the EU Spanish Presidency, the Russian agenda continue to be full with items more urgent Afghanistan, Iraq, post-Prague implementation, Chechnya, relationship with the US, etc.

However, after NATO and EU enlargements, this trend may reverse and Russia might well try to mediate between the different perceptions of European security and defence identity. Since the 90s, military capabilities have been influenced by two new emerging paradigms. Unlike the Cold War, in the post-Cold War period new trends appear and parties in conflict no longer respond to the design of one of the superpowers.

Common feature of the new patterns is that they require the growing use of strategies based in the use of a mixture of tools, military and non-military. Second, crisis management concepts brought new constraints in the use of force. As far as crisis management interventions did not fall into the category of self-defence, the international community and internal constituencies in Western countries implicitly imposed some restrictions on the use of force when dealing with crisis management.

These new constraints lead to a revision of the weaponry used to deal with a crisis. On this premises, use of force strategies in the past ten years have follow a common pattern: first, eroding the physical and psychological resistance of the warring party or parties, at a minimum cost of collateral damage and minimum risk to own casualties, usually by relying on air power strategies, till subduing the fighting will. Second, to proceed to the entry with ground troops only with a minimum risk or when a safe environment is in place.

Give the people what they want: Popular demand for a strong European foreign policy

As a direct consequence of this strategy, new requirements for military capabilities have appeared. Air precision strikes, precision guided ammunition, protection of own troops, new intelligence assets to feed the decision-making process and new weapon systems, communications, command and control systems able to deal with information and decisions in real time, etc. From a European perspective, a third paradigm is added, the projection of force and the ability to execute an operation outside national European territory.

During the Cold War, action in Europe was based on the collective defence hypothesis, i. This collective defence effort included plans and arrangements for troop movement and logistic support within NATO territory. Therefore, new needs arise in the field of strategic communications, transport and sustained logistic support, etc. NATO and the EU rely on intergovernmental cooperation and national capabilities are at the very centre of any collective strategy.