{"title":"超越百分之二:北约负担分担的优先模式","authors":"David Rubin","doi":"10.51870/snht6810","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that NATO's current burden-sharing regime, which I term the proportional model of NATO burden-sharing and which obligates each NATO member to allocate at least 2 percent of its GDP to defence, is deeply flawed from a purely ethical standpoint. This is because the proportional model omits from its approach to distributing the burdens of collective defence two morally relevant ally-level characteristics: namely, individual level of economic development and individual level of external threat. The model therefore treats unfairly both those allies characterised by especially low levels of economic development and those allies characterised by especially high levels of external threat, relative in each case to the alliance-wide average. The article argues that the proportional model should be replaced by that I term the prioritarian model of NATO burden-sharing, which is grounded in the normative theory of prioritarianism from the distributive justice literature. The prioritarian model would morally improve upon the proportional model by incorporating the aforementioned two ally-level characteristics (level of economic development and level of external threat) into its burden-sharing system in the form of two action-guiding prescriptions. The prioritarian model is therefore the fairer of the two models and consequently should be adopted by NATO.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":"143 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transcending Two Percent: Toward a Prioritarian Model of NATO Burden-Sharing\",\"authors\":\"David Rubin\",\"doi\":\"10.51870/snht6810\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article argues that NATO's current burden-sharing regime, which I term the proportional model of NATO burden-sharing and which obligates each NATO member to allocate at least 2 percent of its GDP to defence, is deeply flawed from a purely ethical standpoint. This is because the proportional model omits from its approach to distributing the burdens of collective defence two morally relevant ally-level characteristics: namely, individual level of economic development and individual level of external threat. The model therefore treats unfairly both those allies characterised by especially low levels of economic development and those allies characterised by especially high levels of external threat, relative in each case to the alliance-wide average. The article argues that the proportional model should be replaced by that I term the prioritarian model of NATO burden-sharing, which is grounded in the normative theory of prioritarianism from the distributive justice literature. The prioritarian model would morally improve upon the proportional model by incorporating the aforementioned two ally-level characteristics (level of economic development and level of external threat) into its burden-sharing system in the form of two action-guiding prescriptions. The prioritarian model is therefore the fairer of the two models and consequently should be adopted by NATO.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies\",\"volume\":\"143 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51870/snht6810\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51870/snht6810","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Transcending Two Percent: Toward a Prioritarian Model of NATO Burden-Sharing
This article argues that NATO's current burden-sharing regime, which I term the proportional model of NATO burden-sharing and which obligates each NATO member to allocate at least 2 percent of its GDP to defence, is deeply flawed from a purely ethical standpoint. This is because the proportional model omits from its approach to distributing the burdens of collective defence two morally relevant ally-level characteristics: namely, individual level of economic development and individual level of external threat. The model therefore treats unfairly both those allies characterised by especially low levels of economic development and those allies characterised by especially high levels of external threat, relative in each case to the alliance-wide average. The article argues that the proportional model should be replaced by that I term the prioritarian model of NATO burden-sharing, which is grounded in the normative theory of prioritarianism from the distributive justice literature. The prioritarian model would morally improve upon the proportional model by incorporating the aforementioned two ally-level characteristics (level of economic development and level of external threat) into its burden-sharing system in the form of two action-guiding prescriptions. The prioritarian model is therefore the fairer of the two models and consequently should be adopted by NATO.
期刊介绍:
The Central European Journal of International and Security Studies (CEJISS) was founded by Mitchell Belfer (Editor in Chief), David Erkomaishvili (Deputy Editor in Chief), Nigorakhon Turakhanova (Head of the Academic Centre) and Petr Kucera, in December 2006, as an autonomous wing of the Department of International Relations and European Studies at Metropolitan University Prague. The initial goal was to develop, and project globally, a uniquely Central European take on unfolding international and security issues. This entailed an initial “out-reach” programme to attract scholars from throughout the four Central European states – the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic – to participate in the journal as authors and members of the Editorial and (then) Advisory Boards. By the time of the first issue however, it became clear that CEJISS was also capable of acting as a platform for non-Central European scholars to present their academic research to a more regionalised audience. From issue 1:1 in June 2007 until the present, CEJISS has become, quite literally, a two-way street—it helps Central European scholars enter international academia and international scholars enter Central Europe.