{"title":"Review: Detterbeck, K. and Hepburn, E. (eds.), Handbook of Territorial Politics","authors":"Kévin Vercin","doi":"10.3224/eris.v6i1.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3224/eris.v6i1.12","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":444754,"journal":{"name":"ERIS – European Review of International Studies","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123260844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Extract ----- Abstract Even though the nationalist policies of the current U.S. administration have taken the appearance of a radical shift away from the (neo)liberal approaches of preceding governments, they in fact represent the latest protectionist manifestation of the American system of industrial development and trade, characterised by economic nationalism since the Civil War of 1861-1865 and beyond. Recent trade disputes between the U.S. and Canada, from this perspective, have to be construed in light of a century and a half long evolution of trade relations between the two countries, profoundly marked by the mutations of American economic nationalism. Yet, Canada itself was never immune to protectionist tendencies. In fact, Canada was for a long time during the 20th century more protectionist than the U.S., and many of its own nationalist trade policies from the 1860s onward had significant effects on commercial relationships with the latter. The main objective of this article is therefore that of contextualisation: it paints a picture of the evolution of Canada-U.S. trade policies and relationships which brings “economic nationalism” back in. Its main argument is that these relationships have been characterised by a constant tension between liberalisation and protection, to which Canadian governments have contributed in many ways. Keywords: Canada, United States, Economic Nationalism, Trade, Protectionism, Liberalisation
{"title":"Canada First vs. America First: Economic Nationalism and the Evolution of Canada-U.S. Trade Relations","authors":"Hubert Rioux","doi":"10.3224/ERIS.V6I3.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3224/ERIS.V6I3.03","url":null,"abstract":"Extract ----- Abstract Even though the nationalist policies of the current U.S. administration have taken the appearance of a radical shift away from the (neo)liberal approaches of preceding governments, they in fact represent the latest protectionist manifestation of the American system of industrial development and trade, characterised by economic nationalism since the Civil War of 1861-1865 and beyond. Recent trade disputes between the U.S. and Canada, from this perspective, have to be construed in light of a century and a half long evolution of trade relations between the two countries, profoundly marked by the mutations of American economic nationalism. Yet, Canada itself was never immune to protectionist tendencies. In fact, Canada was for a long time during the 20th century more protectionist than the U.S., and many of its own nationalist trade policies from the 1860s onward had significant effects on commercial relationships with the latter. The main objective of this article is therefore that of contextualisation: it paints a picture of the evolution of Canada-U.S. trade policies and relationships which brings “economic nationalism” back in. Its main argument is that these relationships have been characterised by a constant tension between liberalisation and protection, to which Canadian governments have contributed in many ways. Keywords: Canada, United States, Economic Nationalism, Trade, Protectionism, Liberalisation","PeriodicalId":444754,"journal":{"name":"ERIS – European Review of International Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123874235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Extract ----- Abstract In order to acquire a new military transport aircraft in the 2000s, why did France decide to choose European minilateralism (A400M) rather than the alternative of Franco- American bilateralism (C-17 and C-130)? A “configurational” argument with regard to this decision is developed, using an approach that looks at the historical sociology of a political economy in arms procurement in Europe, derived from the work of Norbert Elias. This argument explains France’s choice of a minilateral Europe as resulting from the effect of social interdependence that is conceptualised by the notion of “configuration”. Establishing the positions adopted by French state and industrial actors required two years of fieldwork (2012 –2014). A total of 105 semi-structured interviews were conducted with French actors (political, military, administrative, and industrial) who took part in the negotiations from the mid-1970 to the early 2000s. Beyond presenting this data, this article contributes to the development of international political sociology by making the concept of configuration operational. Keywords: A400M, configuration, historical sociology, political economy, minilateralism, Europe
{"title":"The Choice for a Minilateral Europe: A Historical Sociology of Defence-Industrial Capitalism","authors":"Samuel B. H. Faure","doi":"10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.05","url":null,"abstract":"Extract ----- Abstract In order to acquire a new military transport aircraft in the 2000s, why did France decide to choose European minilateralism (A400M) rather than the alternative of Franco- American bilateralism (C-17 and C-130)? A “configurational” argument with regard to this decision is developed, using an approach that looks at the historical sociology of a political economy in arms procurement in Europe, derived from the work of Norbert Elias. This argument explains France’s choice of a minilateral Europe as resulting from the effect of social interdependence that is conceptualised by the notion of “configuration”. Establishing the positions adopted by French state and industrial actors required two years of fieldwork (2012 –2014). A total of 105 semi-structured interviews were conducted with French actors (political, military, administrative, and industrial) who took part in the negotiations from the mid-1970 to the early 2000s. Beyond presenting this data, this article contributes to the development of international political sociology by making the concept of configuration operational. Keywords: A400M, configuration, historical sociology, political economy, minilateralism, Europe","PeriodicalId":444754,"journal":{"name":"ERIS – European Review of International Studies","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122708987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Kaija Schilde, The Political Economy of European Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), pp.304. ISBN 978-1107198432","authors":"Lucie Béraud-Sudreau","doi":"10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.12","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":444754,"journal":{"name":"ERIS – European Review of International Studies","volume":"49 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115661972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"European Defence and Security Policies vs. Brexit: National Governments as Actors of Differentiated Integration","authors":"J. Joana","doi":"10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.08","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":444754,"journal":{"name":"ERIS – European Review of International Studies","volume":"339 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133952023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Extract ----- Abstract The theoretical benefits of shared development costs and interoperability in armaments collaborations have led to an increase in cooperative projects, and the policy’s popularity is only likely to grow. Nevertheless, most states fail to achieve their desired levels of collaboration. The question must therefore be raised as to what factors favour partnerships’ success. We argue that realist dynamics play a more significant role than hitherto appreciated. International armaments collaboration is a fundamentally difficult process. Major projects cost significant sums and often require decades to complete. Multiple stakeholders, ranging from military headquarters to corporate managers, may calculate that cooperation no longer serves their interests. Governments therefore need powerful incentives to overcome domestic opposition for collaboration to succeed. Realist interests – notably, the sense of collectively balancing against threats – provide governments with the requisite motivation to overcome domestic discontent. States within alliances stand to benefit more from collaboration because they alone profit from collaboration’s interoperability advantages. Alliances, furthermore, offer assurances in terms of supply security – sometimes through formal arrangements and at others through states’ common interest in not jeopardising the alliance – that mitigate this risk. Realist concerns, as expressed in formal alliances, thus incentivise governments to steer projects through to completion. Keywords: Armaments collaboration, defence industries, NATO, European integration, realism
{"title":"When Collaboration Works: High Politics and Realism’s Renaissance in Arms Collaboration Studies","authors":"Marc R. Devore, Nora Kristine Stai","doi":"10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.02","url":null,"abstract":"Extract ----- Abstract The theoretical benefits of shared development costs and interoperability in armaments collaborations have led to an increase in cooperative projects, and the policy’s popularity is only likely to grow. Nevertheless, most states fail to achieve their desired levels of collaboration. The question must therefore be raised as to what factors favour partnerships’ success. We argue that realist dynamics play a more significant role than hitherto appreciated. International armaments collaboration is a fundamentally difficult process. Major projects cost significant sums and often require decades to complete. Multiple stakeholders, ranging from military headquarters to corporate managers, may calculate that cooperation no longer serves their interests. Governments therefore need powerful incentives to overcome domestic opposition for collaboration to succeed. Realist interests – notably, the sense of collectively balancing against threats – provide governments with the requisite motivation to overcome domestic discontent. States within alliances stand to benefit more from collaboration because they alone profit from collaboration’s interoperability advantages. Alliances, furthermore, offer assurances in terms of supply security – sometimes through formal arrangements and at others through states’ common interest in not jeopardising the alliance – that mitigate this risk. Realist concerns, as expressed in formal alliances, thus incentivise governments to steer projects through to completion. Keywords: Armaments collaboration, defence industries, NATO, European integration, realism","PeriodicalId":444754,"journal":{"name":"ERIS – European Review of International Studies","volume":"116 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124264275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Extract ----- Abstract New developments in the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), such as PESCO or the European Defence Fund (EDF), challenge the differentiated integration framework put forward by Frank Schimmelfennig, Dirk Leuffen and Berthold Rittberger: this policy is not and may have never been a case of low vertical integration and uniform horizontal integration. This paper presents an amended version of their framework based on constructivist institutionalist accounts of European integration. First, it discusses their explanatory variable. Rather than interdependence per se, this paper argues that it is the construction of interdependence that matters in order to understand integration. Second, rather than focusing on primary EU law, which often obscures many policy dynamics, this paper builds on legal, institutional and practice-level elements of CSDP. Based on these changes, this paper argues that national and European actors have constructed interdependence in this policy domain, by tying together armament-related issues with single market regulation and by linking armament-related issues with CSDP’s operational-military requirements around the issue of capabilities. These processes explain CSDP’s policy-making hybridity, i.e. the combination within CSDP of a more intergovernmental policy-making mode (especially but not restricted to operational-military elements) with more supranational elements (especially but not restricted to industrial armament-related elements), as well as its horizontal differentiation. The conclusion discusses the theoretical implications of policy-making hybridity. Keywords: Aarmament; CSDP; defence-industrial policy; differentiated integration; European Commission; European Defence Agency; European Defence Fund; hybridity; PESCO
{"title":"Differentiated Integration in CSDP Through Defence Market Integration","authors":"C. Hoeffler","doi":"10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.03","url":null,"abstract":"Extract ----- Abstract New developments in the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), such as PESCO or the European Defence Fund (EDF), challenge the differentiated integration framework put forward by Frank Schimmelfennig, Dirk Leuffen and Berthold Rittberger: this policy is not and may have never been a case of low vertical integration and uniform horizontal integration. This paper presents an amended version of their framework based on constructivist institutionalist accounts of European integration. First, it discusses their explanatory variable. Rather than interdependence per se, this paper argues that it is the construction of interdependence that matters in order to understand integration. Second, rather than focusing on primary EU law, which often obscures many policy dynamics, this paper builds on legal, institutional and practice-level elements of CSDP. Based on these changes, this paper argues that national and European actors have constructed interdependence in this policy domain, by tying together armament-related issues with single market regulation and by linking armament-related issues with CSDP’s operational-military requirements around the issue of capabilities. These processes explain CSDP’s policy-making hybridity, i.e. the combination within CSDP of a more intergovernmental policy-making mode (especially but not restricted to operational-military elements) with more supranational elements (especially but not restricted to industrial armament-related elements), as well as its horizontal differentiation. The conclusion discusses the theoretical implications of policy-making hybridity. Keywords: Aarmament; CSDP; defence-industrial policy; differentiated integration; European Commission; European Defence Agency; European Defence Fund; hybridity; PESCO","PeriodicalId":444754,"journal":{"name":"ERIS – European Review of International Studies","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125468611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the outcome of the referendum on Brexit held in Great Britain in June 2016, academic researchers have paid considerable attention to this issue. Indeed, since the referendum result the EU and the UK have yet to get past Brexit: it should have happened on March, 29th 2019, exactly two years after the United Kingdom invoked article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, but it has been postponed until at least October, 31st 2019, to give the EU and the UK a last chance to avoid a no-deal scenario and find an agreement fitting both Brussels and London. Meanwhile, the issue continues to divide political elites and citizens alike, as the result of the recent European elections for the European Parliament showed (torn between a high score for the Brexit Party on the one hand and a boost for pro-Europe candidates on the other). As a highsalience issue, Brexit has generated numerous academic publications over the last three and a half years. Moreover, if academic writings on Brexit in general have begun to bloom, many articles and books have been written on the more specific topic of the impact of Brexit on both the UK’s and the EU’s security and defence policy.1 The essay under review here fits in this growing body of literature. The author’s legitimacy on the topic under study has been acknowledged for decades. Simon Duke was one of the leading scholars in the field of European security and defence policy from the end of the 1990’s until he unexpectedly passed away in September 2018. Professor at the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) in Maastricht, he received a PhD from the University of Oxford. He was the author of twelve monographs and over a hundred other publications on European and transatlantic foreign and security issues.2 He recently produced many academic
{"title":"Simon Duke: Will Brexit Damage our Security and Defence? The Impact on the UK and EU (London: Palgrave, 2018), pp. 120. ISBN: 978-3319961064","authors":"Delphine Deschaux-Dutard","doi":"10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.10","url":null,"abstract":"Since the outcome of the referendum on Brexit held in Great Britain in June 2016, academic researchers have paid considerable attention to this issue. Indeed, since the referendum result the EU and the UK have yet to get past Brexit: it should have happened on March, 29th 2019, exactly two years after the United Kingdom invoked article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, but it has been postponed until at least October, 31st 2019, to give the EU and the UK a last chance to avoid a no-deal scenario and find an agreement fitting both Brussels and London. Meanwhile, the issue continues to divide political elites and citizens alike, as the result of the recent European elections for the European Parliament showed (torn between a high score for the Brexit Party on the one hand and a boost for pro-Europe candidates on the other). As a highsalience issue, Brexit has generated numerous academic publications over the last three and a half years. Moreover, if academic writings on Brexit in general have begun to bloom, many articles and books have been written on the more specific topic of the impact of Brexit on both the UK’s and the EU’s security and defence policy.1 The essay under review here fits in this growing body of literature. The author’s legitimacy on the topic under study has been acknowledged for decades. Simon Duke was one of the leading scholars in the field of European security and defence policy from the end of the 1990’s until he unexpectedly passed away in September 2018. Professor at the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) in Maastricht, he received a PhD from the University of Oxford. He was the author of twelve monographs and over a hundred other publications on European and transatlantic foreign and security issues.2 He recently produced many academic","PeriodicalId":444754,"journal":{"name":"ERIS – European Review of International Studies","volume":"159 6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123079463","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rob Johnson and Janne Haaland Matlary (eds.) The United Kingdom’s Defence After Brexit. Britain’s Alliances, Coalitions, and Partnerships (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), pp. 261, ISBN 978-3-319-97168-1.","authors":"Friederike Richter","doi":"10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.11","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":444754,"journal":{"name":"ERIS – European Review of International Studies","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128057310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Extract ----- Abstract Why has European integration affected some of Europe’s defence firms more than others? Specifically, what explains the co-existence of national, transnational and European champions in this industry? This article develops answers to this question from two complementary angles. First, through examining the business models and turnover of the four largest companies in Europe (BAe Systems, Airbus, Thales, and Leonardo), it shows that firms who mostly produce military goods are less likely to undergo strong European integration. Second, using an original database on the social backgrounds of these firms’ board members, two further hypotheses are tested. Using data on higher education and careers, on the one hand we show that the relationship of board members to their respective state varies from close (Thales and to some extent Airbus) to distant (BAe Systems and Leonardo). On the other, our data reveals that when the careers of these actors are frequently internationalised, this correlates to either strong European integration at the level of the firm (Airbus and Thales) or, alternatively, strong Transatlanticism (BAe Systems or Leonardo). The article as a whole thus both opens up new avenues for research on the defence industry, whilst adding political economy and sociological dimensions to existing scholarship on differentiated European integration. Keywords: defence companies, differentiated integration, Europe, sociology, economic elites
{"title":"The Differentiated Integration of Defence Companies in Europe: A Sociology of (Trans) National Economic Elites","authors":"Samuel B. H. Faure, Thibaut Joltreau, Andy Smith","doi":"10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.07","url":null,"abstract":"Extract ----- Abstract Why has European integration affected some of Europe’s defence firms more than others? Specifically, what explains the co-existence of national, transnational and European champions in this industry? This article develops answers to this question from two complementary angles. First, through examining the business models and turnover of the four largest companies in Europe (BAe Systems, Airbus, Thales, and Leonardo), it shows that firms who mostly produce military goods are less likely to undergo strong European integration. Second, using an original database on the social backgrounds of these firms’ board members, two further hypotheses are tested. Using data on higher education and careers, on the one hand we show that the relationship of board members to their respective state varies from close (Thales and to some extent Airbus) to distant (BAe Systems and Leonardo). On the other, our data reveals that when the careers of these actors are frequently internationalised, this correlates to either strong European integration at the level of the firm (Airbus and Thales) or, alternatively, strong Transatlanticism (BAe Systems or Leonardo). The article as a whole thus both opens up new avenues for research on the defence industry, whilst adding political economy and sociological dimensions to existing scholarship on differentiated European integration. Keywords: defence companies, differentiated integration, Europe, sociology, economic elites","PeriodicalId":444754,"journal":{"name":"ERIS – European Review of International Studies","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126658673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：