LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: JZ, D839
This article seeks to develop a concept of ‘security governance’ in the context of post-Cold War Europe. The validity of a governance approach lies in its ability to locate some of the distinctive ways in which European security has been coordinated, managed and regulated. Based on an examination of the way governance is utilised in other political fields of political analysis, the article identifies the concept of security governance as involving the coordinated management and regulation of issues by multiple and separate authorities, the interventions of both public and private actors (depending upon the issue), formal and informal arrangements, in turn structured by discourse and norms, and purposefully directed toward particular policy outcomes. Three issues are examined to demonstrate the utility of the concept of security governance for understanding security in post-Cold War Europe: the transformation of NATO, the Europeanisation of security accomplished through EU-led initiatives and, finally, the resultant dynamic relationship between forms of exclusion and inclusion in governance.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 4 Beate Kohler-Koch and Rainer Eising (eds.), The Transformation of Governance within the European Union (London: Routledge, 1999); Rhodes, 'The New Governance', pp. 652-67.
    • 5 Jon Pierre, 'Introduction: Understanding Governance', in Jon Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 3-4.
    • 6 James Rosenau, 'Governance, Order and Change in World Politics', in James Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel (eds.), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 7.
    • 7 Bob Jessop, 'The Changing Governance of Welfare: Recent Trends in its Primary Functions, Scale and Modes of Coordination', Social Policy and Administration, 33:4 (1999), p. 351. Heterarchy refers to forms of coordinated behaviour that are distinct from modes such as anarchy (for example, the free market) or hierarchy (vertical coordination by the state/government).
    • 8 James Rosenau, 'Change, Complexity, and Governance in Globalising Space', in Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance, p. 172; and Jon Pierre and B. Guy Peters, Governance, Politics and the State (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000), pp. 59-60.
    • 9 Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 2.
    • 10 Jon Pierre, 'Introduction: Understanding Governance', in Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance, p. 4.
    • 11 See, for instance, the part-privatisation of the British Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in July 2000.
    • 12 The US government, for example, hired Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI) a private company based in Alexandria, Virginia, for the training of the newly established Croat army in 1994. On the role of private actors in military security see T. K. Adams, 'The New Mercenaries and the Privatisation of Conflict', Parameters, 29:2 (1999), pp. 103-116; and C. Spearin, 'Private Security Companies and Humanitarians: A Corporate Solution to Securing Humanitarian Spaces', International Peacekeeping, 8:1 (2001), pp. 20-43.
    • 13 Pierre and Peters, Governance, Politics and the State, ch. 8.
    • 14 Steve Smith, 'The Increasing Insecurity of Security Studies: Conceptualising Security in the Last Twenty Years', in Stuart Croft and Terry Terriff (eds.), Critical Reflections on Security and Change (London: Frank Cass, 2000), p. 84.
    • 15 Barry Buzan and Richard Little, International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p.101.
    • 16 B. Guy Peters, 'Globalisation, Institutions and Governance' (European University Institute, Jean Monnet Chair Paper, RSC no.98/51, 1998), [5/9/02]; and Pierre and Peters, Governance, Politics and the State, esp. pp. 193-209.
    • 17 Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood, p. 2.
    • 18 Andrew Hurrell, 'International Society and the Study of Regimes. A Reflective Approach', in Volker Rittberger (ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 49-72.
    • 19 Judith Goldstein and Robert Keohane (eds.), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1993).
    • 20 Rosenau, 'Governance, Order and Change', p. 5.
    • 21 Lykke Friis and Anna Murphy, 'The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe: Governance and Boundaries', Journal of Common Market Studies, 37:2 (1999), p. 214.
    • 22 Ian Hurd, 'Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics', International Organisation, 53:2 (1999), p. 381.
    • 23 As already noted this is part of institutionalist thinking. It is most obviously apparent, however, in social constructivism. See especially, Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
    • 24 Here we borrow from Thomas Risse-Kappen, 'Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War', International Organization, 48:2 (1994) .
    • 25 Ted Hopf, 'The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory', International Security, 23:1 (1998), pp. 177-80; and Andreas Bieler, 'Questioning Cognitivism and Constructivism in IR Theory: Reflections on the Material Structure of Ideas', Politics, 21:2 (2001), pp. 93-100.
    • 26 Frank Schimmelfennig, 'International Socialisation in the New Europe: Rational Action in an Institutional Environment', European Journal of International Relations, 6:1 (2000), pp. 109-39. For the general proposition see Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1996).
    • 31 See Stuart Croft, Jolyon Howorth, Terry Terriff and Mark Webber, 'NATO's Triple Challenge', International Affairs, 76:3 (2000), pp. 495-518.
    • 32 Philip Gordon, 'NATO after 11 September', Survival, 43:4 (2001-2), p. 5.
    • 33 The Alliance's Strategic Concept Approved by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington DC on 23 and 24 April 1999, NATO Press Release NAC-S(99)65, 24 April 1999. How dynamic this thinking has been is a moot point. The scant reference to terrorism in the 1999 Strategic Concept, for instance, suggests an organisational lag in the face of rising security threats.
    • 34 David Yost, 'The New NATO and Collective Security', Survival, 40:2 (1998), pp. 135-60.
    • 35 See, for example, 'Declaration on a Transformed North Atlantic Alliance issued by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council (The London Declaration)' London, 6 July 1990, paras. 21 and 22; (17/06/03); and 'The Alliance's Strategic Concept agreed by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council', Rome, 8 November 1991, para. 21; (17/06/03).
    • 36 'Declaration on Peace and Cooperation issued by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council (including decisions leading to the creation of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) (The Rome Declaration), Rome, 8 November 1991, para 3, (17/06/03).
    • 37 See Judy Dempsey, 'EU launches military operation in Macedonia', FT.com, 31 March 2003, (01/04/03).
    • 38 See Judy Dempsey, 'Bosnia role boosts EU military ambitions', FT.com, 25 February 2003, (25/02/03).
    • 39 For a statement of the Alliance's policy response to terrorism, see 'Prague Summit Declaration: Issued by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Prague on 21 November 2002' NATO Press Release 2002)127, 21 November 2002, para. 4d.
    • 40 See 'The London Declaration'.
    • 41 The EAPC replaced the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) in 1997.
    • 42 'The Birth and Development of the EAPC Idea', NATO Handbook, (15/06/03).
    • 43 'Partnership for Peace', NATO Handbook, (15/06/03).
    • 44 'Mediterranean Dialogue', NATO Handbook, (15/06/03).
    • 45 For example, NATO's Virtual Silk Highway project, launched by the NATO Science Committee in 2002, is designed to improve the Internet connection of the academic communities of the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia so that they can communicate with colleagues on a global basis through a fast access to the web. See 'NATO Secretary General Inaugurates Virtual Silk Highway Project on Wednesday, 11 June 2003', NATO Press Release (2003) 063, 11 June 2003, (16/06/03).
    • 46 This phrase was coined by Senator Richard Lugar in a speech in June 1993. See. R. Asmus, Opening NATO's Door: How the Alliance Remade Itself for a New Era (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), p. 33.
    • 47 For a brief overview of NATO's initial reticence to act 'out of area' and the impact of the 'out of area or out of business' discourse, see Terry Terriff, 'US Ideas and Military Change in NATO, 1989-1994', in Theo Farrell and Terry Terriff (eds.), The Sources of Military Change: Culture, Politics, Technology (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002), esp. pp. 97-107.
    • 48 Russian membership was given series consideration by the Clinton administration. See. Strobe Talbott, The Russia Hand: A Memoir of Presidential Diplomacy (New York: Random House, 2002), p. 131.
    • 49 Anthony Forster and William Wallace, 'What is NATO For?', Survival, 43:4 (2001-2), p. 117.
    • 50 'The London Declaration', para. 2.
    • 51 See Membership Action Plan (MAP) NATO Press Release NAC-S(99) 66, 24 April 1999, (15/06/03).
    • 52 Frank Schimmelfennig, 'NATO Enlargement: A Constructivist Explanation', Security Studies, 8:2/3 (1999), p. 213.
    • 53 This was a criticism levelled against NATO's Operation Allied Force over Kosovo in 1999. See Noam Chomsky, The New Military Humanism (London: Pluto Press, 1999).
    • 54 Adam Roberts, 'NATO's “Humanitarian War” over Kosovo', Survival, 41:3 (1999), pp. 103-4.
    • 55 T. A. Borzel and T. Risse, When Europe Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic Change. European University Institute Working Paper, RSC no. 2000/56 (Badia Fiesolana: EUI 2000).
    • 56 R. Ladrech, 'Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Insitutions: The Case of France', Journal of Common Market Studies. 32:1 (1994), pp. 69-88; C. Radaell, 'Whither Euopeanisation? Concept Stretching and Substantive Change', Paper presented at the Political Studies annual conference, 2000; and Vivien A Schmidt, The Futures of European Capitalism, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002), esp. ch. 1.
    • 57 S. S. Andersen and K. A. Eliassen (eds.), Making Policy in Europe: The Europeification of National Policymaking (London, New Delhi: Sage, 1993).
    • 58 Jolyon Howorth, European Integration and Defence: the Ultimate Challenge? Chaillot Paper no. 43 (Paris, WEU, Institute for Security Studies, 2000) .
    • 59 For lengthy treatment of this theme, see Jolyon Howorth and Anand Menon (eds.), The European Union and National Defence Policy (London, Routledge 1997); Ben Tonra, The Europeanisation of National Foreign Policy: Dutch, Danish and Irish Foreign Policy in the European Union (London, Ashgate 2001).
    • 60 The WEU had been referred to in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty as 'an integral part of the development of the [European] Union'. Thus, the development of an ESDI in which the WEU was the linchpin would, by extension, elevate the role of the EU.
    • 61 The genesis of ESDP is detailed in Howorth, European Integration and Defence: The Ultimate Challenge?', pp. 9-30. ESDP is innovative in the development of a range of new political institutions, among them the High Representative - CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC), the European Union Military Committee (EUMC) and the European Union Military Staff (EUMS). Jolyon Howorth, 'European Defence and the Changing Politics of the European Union: Hanging Together or Hanging Separately?', Journal of Common Market Studies, 39:4 (2001), pp. 765-89. It is innovative also in that it involves the EU developing for the first time a discrete military capacity, in the so-called 'Headline Goal' articulated at the Helsinki European Council in December 1999. This involves an ability 'to deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least one year military forces up to 50,000-60,000 persons capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks'. Presidency Conclusions, Helsinki European Council, (5/9/02). The 'Petersberg Tasks' refer to humanitarian and rescue missions, peacekeeping and the use of combat forces for peace enforcement and derive from The Petersberg Declaration of the WEU of June 1992. They were subsequently incorporated into the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice.
    • 65 See B. Schmitt (ed.), Between Cooperation and Competition: the Transatlantic Defence Market, Chaillot Paper no. 44 (Paris: Institute for Security Studies, Western European Union, 2001).
    • 66 Howorth has called this process 'supranational intergovernmentalism'. See European Integration and Defence: the Ultimate Challenge?, p. 36.
    • 67 Jolyon Howorth, 'Ideas and Discourse in the Construction of a European Security and Defence Policy', to be published in a special 2004 edition of West European Politics on 'Europeanisation, Policy Change and Discourse', edited by Vivien Schmidt and Claudio Radaelli.
    • 68 Jolyon Howorth, 'The CESDP and the Forging of a European Security Culture', Politique Européenne, vol. 8, Autumn 2002, pp. 88-108.
    • 69 Brigid Laffan, Rory O'Donnell and Michael Smith, Europe's Experimental Union: Rethinking Integration (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. 38-9.
    • 70 The notion of a security order is implicit in a good deal of EU documentation, although rarely spelled out at length and in detail. For an example see European Commission, External Relations Directorate General, CARDS Assistance Programme to the Western Balkans, Regional Strategy Paper, 2002-2006, (24/8/02). Expositions on this theme are also apparent in some of the interventions of the High Representative - CFSP, Javier Solana and the EU Commissioner for External Affairs, Chris Patten. See, for instance, Javier Solana, 'Europe: Security in the Twenty-First Century' (The Olaf Palme Memorial Lecture, 20 June 2001), (24/8/02) and Chris Patten, 'A Voice for Europe? (The Brian Lenihan Memorial Lecture, Dublin, 7 March 2001), (24/8/02).
    • 71 Christopher Hill, 'The EU's Capacity for Conflict Prevention', European Foreign Affairs Review, 6:3 (2001), pp. 315-33.
    • 72 See Javier Solana, 'The CFSP in an Enlarged Union' (speech to the Institut français des relations internationales, 1 March 2001).
    • 73 Dimitri Trenin, 'Introduction: the Grand Redesign', in A. Lieven and D. Trenin (eds.), Ambivalent Neighbours: The EU, NATO and the Price of Membership (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2003), p. 11.
    • 74 Helen Wallace, 'Pan-European Integration: A Real or Imagined Community?', Government and Opposition, 32:2 (1997), pp. 215-33.
    • 75 John Löwenhardt, Ronald Hill and Margot Light, 'A Wider Europe: the View from Minsk and Chisenau', International Affairs, 77:3 (2001), pp. 605-20.
    • 76 Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), pp. 113-15.
    • 77 Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983), pp. 31-63.
    • 78 The Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood, pp. 2-3; Rhodes, 'The New Governance', p. 657; Jan Kooiman, 'Social-Political Governance: Introduction', in Jan Kooiman (ed.), Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions (London: Sage, 1993), pp. 1-6.
    • 79 Pierre and Peters, Governance, Politics and the State, pp. 14-27.
    • 80 B. Lo, Vladimir Putin and the Evolution of Russian Foreign Policy (London: the Royal Institute of International Affairs/Blackwell Publishing, 2003), p. 111.
    • 81 Dimitri. Trenin, The End of Eurasia: Russia on the Border between Geopolitics and Globalisation (Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2002), p. 328.
    • 82 Vladimir Baranovsky, 'Russia: A Part of Europe or Apart from Europe?', International Affairs, 76:3 (2000), pp. 451.
    • 87 These arrangements are covered in detail in Mark Webber, Terry Terriff, Jolyon Howorth and Stuart Croft, 'The Common European Security and Defence Policy and the “Third-Country” Issue', European Security, 11:3 (2002), pp. 75-100.
    • 88 J. Hagen, 'Redrawing the Imagined Map of Europe: the Rise and Fall of the “Centre”', Political Geography, 22 (2003), p. 492.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article