Persevering with bandwagoning, not hedging: why European security cooperation still conforms to realism

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Lorenzo Cladi
{"title":"Persevering with bandwagoning, not hedging: why European security cooperation still conforms to realism","authors":"Lorenzo Cladi","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2022.2110476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Over the past few years, European security cooperation has been revived. The EU has launched several defence initiatives and some member states, such as France have launched their own collaborative initiatives. The renewed activism in European security cooperation followed several years of inactivity and warrants theoretical investigation. Hedging is a concept that has been employed to make sense of renewed activism in European security cooperation. By pursuing hedging, Europeans are preparing for a future in which the US might be unwilling or unable to get involved, and to assist with, European security affairs. Advancing a neorealist analysis, this article argues that European states’ efforts to increase cooperation remain consistent with the broader trajectory of European security cooperation since the end of the Cold War. European states remain dependent on the US for their security and are still far from autonomously projecting their influence internationally. This article illustrates the argument with reference to the recent withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan and the French promise to wind down its commitment in the Sahel. The implications of this argument are discussed in detail.","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":"624 - 643"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Defence Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2022.2110476","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Over the past few years, European security cooperation has been revived. The EU has launched several defence initiatives and some member states, such as France have launched their own collaborative initiatives. The renewed activism in European security cooperation followed several years of inactivity and warrants theoretical investigation. Hedging is a concept that has been employed to make sense of renewed activism in European security cooperation. By pursuing hedging, Europeans are preparing for a future in which the US might be unwilling or unable to get involved, and to assist with, European security affairs. Advancing a neorealist analysis, this article argues that European states’ efforts to increase cooperation remain consistent with the broader trajectory of European security cooperation since the end of the Cold War. European states remain dependent on the US for their security and are still far from autonomously projecting their influence internationally. This article illustrates the argument with reference to the recent withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan and the French promise to wind down its commitment in the Sahel. The implications of this argument are discussed in detail.
坚持随波逐流而不是对冲:为什么欧洲安全合作仍然符合现实
摘要过去几年,欧洲安全合作死灰复燃。欧盟发起了几项国防倡议,一些成员国,如法国,也发起了自己的合作倡议。欧洲安全合作在几年的不活跃之后重新活跃起来,值得进行理论调查。对冲是一个被用来理解欧洲安全合作中新的积极性的概念。通过寻求对冲,欧洲人正在为美国可能不愿意或无法参与并协助欧洲安全事务的未来做准备。本文提出了一种新现实主义分析,认为欧洲国家加强合作的努力与冷战结束以来欧洲安全合作的更广泛轨迹保持一致。欧洲国家的安全仍然依赖美国,而且还远远没有自主发挥其国际影响力。这篇文章阐述了美国最近从阿富汗撤军和法国承诺减少其在萨赫勒地区的承诺的论点。详细讨论了这一论点的含义。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Defence Studies
Defence Studies Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信