Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice: The Evolution of NATOs Security Agenda

İ. Sula, and Cagla Luleci
{"title":"Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice: The Evolution of NATOs Security Agenda","authors":"İ. Sula, and Cagla Luleci","doi":"10.21599/ATJIR.88743","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the end of the Cold War, NATO's function has become a significant puzzle for world politics and the International Relations(IR) discipline. Numerous studieshavebeendeveloped on thispuzzle, whichapproachtheissuefromdifferenttheoreticalanddescriptiveangles. Thisarticlefits in thisliteratureviafocusing on thesecurityconception of theorganization. Hence, the purpose is to analyze NATO's post-Cold War endurance, while linking the 'theory' with the'practice' of security. Empirically, the article focuses on three post-Cold War Strategic Concepts of NATO in a comparative manner. Theoretically, it utilizesthe three questions that are generated by critical approaches to security: What is security (security agenda) according to NATO Whose security (referent object) does NATO act for What are the means to be employed to secure the referent object for NATO While comparatively analyzing NATO's post-Cold War Strategic Concepts (in November 1991; April 1999; November 2010) with these questions, the article presents detailed empirical data on NATO's changing post-Cold War security conception; hence, its endurance. The article concludes with insights on the changing and remaining parts of NATO's security agenda.","PeriodicalId":7411,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21599/ATJIR.88743","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

With the end of the Cold War, NATO's function has become a significant puzzle for world politics and the International Relations(IR) discipline. Numerous studieshavebeendeveloped on thispuzzle, whichapproachtheissuefromdifferenttheoreticalanddescriptiveangles. Thisarticlefits in thisliteratureviafocusing on thesecurityconception of theorganization. Hence, the purpose is to analyze NATO's post-Cold War endurance, while linking the 'theory' with the'practice' of security. Empirically, the article focuses on three post-Cold War Strategic Concepts of NATO in a comparative manner. Theoretically, it utilizesthe three questions that are generated by critical approaches to security: What is security (security agenda) according to NATO Whose security (referent object) does NATO act for What are the means to be employed to secure the referent object for NATO While comparatively analyzing NATO's post-Cold War Strategic Concepts (in November 1991; April 1999; November 2010) with these questions, the article presents detailed empirical data on NATO's changing post-Cold War security conception; hence, its endurance. The article concludes with insights on the changing and remaining parts of NATO's security agenda.
弥合理论与实践之间的差距:北约安全议程的演变
随着冷战的结束,北约的功能已成为世界政治和国际关系学科的一个重大难题。关于这一难题,人们进行了大量的研究,从不同的理论和描述角度探讨了这一问题。本文在这篇文献综述中,重点讨论了组织的安全概念。因此,本文的目的是分析北约在冷战后的耐力,同时将安全的“理论”与“实践”联系起来。在实证方面,本文以比较的方式对冷战后北约的三种战略理念进行了研究。从理论上讲,它利用了安全批判方法所产生的三个问题:北约认为什么是安全(安全议程),北约为谁的安全(参照对象)而行动,北约采取什么手段来确保参照对象的安全,同时比较分析了北约冷战后的战略概念(1991年11月;1999年4月;带着这些问题,本文提供了北约冷战后安全观念变化的详细实证数据;因此,它的耐力。文章最后对北约安全议程的变化和剩余部分提出了见解。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信