|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
065589
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2000.
|
| Description |
p.33-55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
027632
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Frances Pinter ( Publishers)., 1987.
|
| Description |
218p.Hbk
|
| Standard Number |
0861876652
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 029304 | 944.08/HOW 029304 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
116682
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
For scholars and practitioners of European politics alike, the distinction between supranationalism and inter-governmentalism has always been fundamental. This distinction has underpinned the various schools of European integration theory, just as it has remained crucial for European governments keen to demonstrate that the Member States remain in charge of key policy areas. Nowhere is this considered to be more central than in the area of foreign and security policy, which has consciously been set within the rigid intergovernmental framework of Pillar Two of the Maastricht Treaty and, under the Lisbon Treaty, remains subject to the unanimity rule. However, scholarship on the major decision-making agencies of the foreign and security policy of the EU suggests that the distinction is not only blurred but increasingly meaningless. This article demonstrates that, in virtually every case, decisions are shaped and even taken by small groups of relatively well-socialized officials in the key committees acting in a mode which is as close to supranational as it is to intergovernmental.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
034602
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Croom Helm, 1984.
|
| Description |
264p.
|
| Standard Number |
0312191006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 025562 | 355.033544/HOW 025562 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
148300
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The world is entering a period of power transition, at the outcome of which some new form of global order (or disorder) is likely to emerge. Critical to this process is the interaction between the established powers, the USA and the European Union (EU), and the emerging powers, particularly China, Brazil, India and Russia. Many analysts have classified the EU as a declining power, a perception that has been enhanced with the triple crises of sovereignty that have rocked the Union since the mid-2000s (money, borders and defence). In this context, the publication of the EU Global Strategy was an opportunity for the EU to state clearly the nature of its ongoing and future relations with the rest of the world. This article argues that, in reality, Europe as a bloc (as opposed to its member states severally) has very limited purchase with the other major powers, and an ambivalent or ill-defined grasp of how to engage with them. They, for their part, have difficulty in knowing how to understand the EU as an actor and prefer to deal bilaterally with its key member states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
147920
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There is much in this interview that merits comment, but I will stick to four basic issues: Brexit; the 2003 European Security Strategy (ESS) vs the 2016 European Union Global Strategy (EUGS); strategic autonomy; resilience in the neighbourhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
154469
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The re-launch of the EU’s security and defence project in the wake of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump has focused the spotlight on the relationship between NATO and the EU. This article reviews the detailed aspects of that relationship as studied in the various contributions to this special issue. It argues that, over and above cooperation on the ground, the key issue to be addressed, which is usually skated over in the “big picture” literature on this question, is: where is all this heading? Is there a move towards a clear EU–NATO division of labour (if so, will it be geographic or functional?); or are the allies seeking a radical new balance of responsibilities and commitment as between the US and the Europeans for the stabilisation of the European neighbourhood? The paper argues that EU “strategic autonomy”, as called for in the Global Strategy document of 2016, can only be achieved through the Europeanisation of NATO itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
001648
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 1997.
|
| Description |
xx,185p.
|
| Series |
State and the European Union
|
| Standard Number |
0415164842
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 041197 | 355.03354/HOW 041197 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
056921
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2003.
|
| Description |
p173-191
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
051558
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
120452
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
It is over twenty years since the 'international community' embarked on what seems to be an increasingly regular policy of intervening in the internal affairs of states on humanitarian grounds. A massive literature has developed that analyses the theoretical, political, legal, normative and strategic dimensions of humanitarian intervention. This article engages with that literature and attempts to draw a provisional balance sheet for this twenty-first-century activity by examining a number of key cases and analysing the motivations and drivers behind the decision to intervene as well as the practical consequences of the intervention itself. In the context of the recent crises in Libya, Syria and Mali, which are seemingly comparable situations but which have produced significantly different policy preferences on the part of the international community, the article concludes that there are few clear prescriptions as to when intervention is and is not appropriate or justified. The cases examined suggest that, all too often, intervention takes place hastily and in ad hoc fashion with too little thought about the medium- and long-term consequences, which often turn out to be in contradiction with the original motives for intervention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
090035
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Hundmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
|
| Description |
xix, 315p.
|
| Standard Number |
9780333639122
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 054367 | 355.0334/HOW 054367 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
091613
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A recent wave of scholarly literature has argued forcibly that the European Union's European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) represents an attempt on the part of the EU to "balance" against the United States. According to such analyses, the EU is reacting to American global preeminence by building up its military capacities to enhance its own ability to play a significant, autonomous role in international affairs. This article takes issue with such claims. It points, first, to significant theoretical and methodological shortcomings inherent in the work of the "soft balancers." Second, and more fundamentally, it subjects this work to careful empirical scrutiny and illustrates how the soft balancers have fundamentally misunderstood ESDP. Finally, it illustrates how such misinterpretations result from a failure to appreciate the profound impact that institutional structures wield over substantive outcomes in international security affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|