| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
085670
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article fills an important empirical gap concerning a key building block of the EU's Headline Goal 2010, the EU Battlegroups. It asks whether the Battlegroup concept has been robust enough to drive significant changes in two smaller EU member state militaries. We find that it has, though with important qualifications, in the Swedish case, but much less in the Czech case. We stress the importance of linkages between the Battlegroup concept and the prevailing defense reform ideas in each state. We argue that Battlegroup deployment would lead to even greater transformation but that European leaders currently have not faced powerful incentives to deploy the kinds of precise assets the Battlegroups provide. The article also addresses both the fiscal priorities that hamper military readiness and delay deployments and the substantial and enduring gap between word and deed for which EU military efforts have become known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
129640
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Though still a small percentage of the total stock of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) present in European countries, FDI coming from China has risen dramatically in the European Union (EU) since 2009. This introduction to the special issue on "The Politics of Hosting Chinese Investment in Europe" examines the political fears aroused by this recent surge and by the prospect of continued Chinese direct investment in European economies. After surveying patterns of Chinese investment in the EU, this introduction asks what is distinctive about the potential economic and political consequences of Chinese FDI and lays out the argument for and against treating Chinese FDI as sui generis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
083659
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this paper, we identify authority as an important dimension of variance among international institutions. Essentially, the greater the authority of i states have yielded to them. Highly authoritative institutions can make decisions that legally bind domestic governments on specified issues even without those governments' consent. Over the past 20 years, scholars have viewed the evolution of international institutions largely through the lens of state motives. We argue that it is time to think more systematically about the role of the structure of the international system. Two factors that impact international structure-previously existing institutions and the presence of systemic shocks-can complement theories of actor motives to better account for the level of sovereignty yielded to authoritative international institutions. We illustrate the potential importance of including structural variables by applying the argument to sets of cases in currency cooperation and human rights. We find that structural factors increase the probability of states yielding sovereignty to international institutions, though structural factors are only a permissive cause of institution formation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|