When politics trumps strategy: UK–EU security collaboration after Brexit

IF 2.3 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE International Political Science Review Pub Date : 2021-05-11 DOI:10.1177/01925121211003789
Benjamin Martill, M. Sus
{"title":"When politics trumps strategy: UK–EU security collaboration after Brexit","authors":"Benjamin Martill, M. Sus","doi":"10.1177/01925121211003789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Both the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) have significant incentives for close collaboration in foreign, security and defence policies, given their shared strategic interests, the clear potential for efficiency savings in working together, and the intensity of prior working relations. That the recently negotiated EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement contains no provisions in this area is thus puzzling for followers of European security, who predicted prompt agreement, and for theories of international cooperation, which emphasise the importance of shared threats, absolute gains and prior interaction. We argue the failure to reach such an agreement stemmed from the politics of the withdrawal process itself, which resulted in acute problems of institutional selectivity, negotiating dynamics that polarised the relationship, institutional change that made an agreement less likely, and distributional scrabbling to supplant the UK. Our findings show that the dynamics of moving away from existing forms of cooperation are highly distinct from those motivating cooperation in normal times.","PeriodicalId":47785,"journal":{"name":"International Political Science Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"404 - 417"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/01925121211003789","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121211003789","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Both the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) have significant incentives for close collaboration in foreign, security and defence policies, given their shared strategic interests, the clear potential for efficiency savings in working together, and the intensity of prior working relations. That the recently negotiated EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement contains no provisions in this area is thus puzzling for followers of European security, who predicted prompt agreement, and for theories of international cooperation, which emphasise the importance of shared threats, absolute gains and prior interaction. We argue the failure to reach such an agreement stemmed from the politics of the withdrawal process itself, which resulted in acute problems of institutional selectivity, negotiating dynamics that polarised the relationship, institutional change that made an agreement less likely, and distributional scrabbling to supplant the UK. Our findings show that the dynamics of moving away from existing forms of cooperation are highly distinct from those motivating cooperation in normal times.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
当政治压倒战略:英国脱欧后的英国与欧盟安全合作
联合王国(UK)和欧洲联盟(EU)都具有在外交、安全和国防政策方面密切合作的重大动机,因为它们有共同的战略利益、合作节省效率的明显潜力以及先前工作关系的强度。因此,最近谈判达成的《欧盟-英国贸易与合作协定》(EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement)并未包含这方面的条款,令欧洲安全的追随者和强调共同威胁、绝对收益和事先互动重要性的国际合作理论感到困惑。他们预测,双方将迅速达成协议。我们认为,未能达成这样一项协议源于脱欧过程本身的政治,这导致了制度选择性、使关系两极分化的谈判动态、使协议不太可能达成的制度变革以及取代英国的分配争夺等尖锐问题。我们的研究结果表明,摆脱现有合作形式的动力与正常时期激励合作的动力截然不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: IPSR is committed to publishing material that makes a significant contribution to international political science. It seeks to meet the needs of political scientists throughout the world who are interested in studying political phenomena in the contemporary context of increasing international interdependence and global change. IPSR reflects the aims and intellectual tradition of its parent body, the International Political Science Association: to foster the creation and dissemination of rigorous political inquiry free of subdisciplinary or other orthodoxy.
期刊最新文献
Does municipal amalgamation affect trust in local politicians? The case of Norway The revenge of ‘democratic peace’ Behind the technocratic challenge: Old and new alternatives to party government in Italy The deepest foundation of our democratic crisis Don’t put a ring on it: Gender stereotypes in citizens’ preferences for executive positions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1