ERIS – European Review of International Studies最新文献_第5页

Review: Detterbeck, K. and Hepburn, E. (eds.), Handbook of Territorial Politics 书评:Detterbeck, K.和Hepburn, E.(编)，《领土政治手册》

ERIS – European Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI: 10.3224/eris.v6i1.12

Kévin Vercin

引用次数: 0

Canada First vs. America First: Economic Nationalism and the Evolution of Canada-U.S. Trade Relations 加拿大优先vs.美国优先:经济民族主义与加美关系演变。贸易关系

ERIS – European Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2019-05-14 DOI: 10.3224/ERIS.V6I3.03

Hubert Rioux

{"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}

引用次数: 1

The Choice for a Minilateral Europe: A Historical Sociology of Defence-Industrial Capitalism 小边欧洲的选择:国防工业资本主义的历史社会学

ERIS – European Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2019-03-17 DOI: 10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.05

Samuel B. H. Faure

{"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}

引用次数: 8

Kaija Schilde, The Political Economy of European Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), pp.304. ISBN 978-1107198432 Kaija Schilde，《欧洲安全的政治经济学》(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社，2017)，页304。ISBN 978 - 1107198432

ERIS – European Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2019-03-17 DOI: 10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.12

Lucie Béraud-Sudreau

引用次数: 0

European Defence and Security Policies vs. Brexit: National Governments as Actors of Differentiated Integration 欧洲防务与安全政策与英国脱欧:各国政府作为差别化一体化的行动者

ERIS – European Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2019-03-17 DOI: 10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.08

J. Joana

引用次数: 0

When Collaboration Works: High Politics and Realism’s Renaissance in Arms Collaboration Studies

ERIS – European Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2019-03-17 DOI: 10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.02

Marc R. Devore, Nora Kristine Stai

{"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}

引用次数: 3

Differentiated Integration in CSDP Through Defence Market Integration 基于防务市场整合的CSDP差异化整合

ERIS – European Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2019-03-17 DOI: 10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.03

C. Hoeffler

{"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}

引用次数: 8

Simon Duke: Will Brexit Damage our Security and Defence? The Impact on the UK and EU (London: Palgrave, 2018), pp. 120. ISBN: 978-3319961064 西蒙·杜克:英国脱欧会损害我们的安全和国防吗?对英国和欧盟的影响(伦敦:帕尔格雷夫，2018)，第120页。ISBN: 978 - 3319961064

ERIS – European Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2019-03-17 DOI: 10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.10

Delphine Deschaux-Dutard

{"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}

引用次数: 0

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. 罗布·约翰逊和珍妮·哈兰德·马特拉里(编)英国脱欧后的国防。《英国的联盟、联盟和伙伴关系》(贝辛斯托克:Palgrave Macmillan出版社，2019)，第261页，ISBN 978-3-319-97168-1。

ERIS – European Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2019-03-17 DOI: 10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.11

Friederike Richter

引用次数: 0

The Differentiated Integration of Defence Companies in Europe: A Sociology of (Trans) National Economic Elites 欧洲防务企业的差异化整合:一个(跨)国家经济精英的社会学

ERIS – European Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2019-03-17 DOI: 10.3224/ERIS.V6I2.07

Samuel B. H. Faure, Thibaut Joltreau, Andy Smith

{"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}

引用次数: 5