| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
190850
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article describes the process of norm localisation in the security sector by analysing the context, format and functions of national security strategies published by the Visegrád countries between 1990 and 2020. After the end of the cold war, the “Europeanisation” of the security policy of Central European took place, which included the publication of Western-style national security strategies. Nevertheless, due to national and regional particularities, such documents serve specific political and communication functions, signifying that Visegrád states localised the practice of issuing national security strategies instead of merely copying them. This process led to the diminishing practical value of such documents at the expense of their communication role in terms of belonging and hedging. The article tracks these developments through the three waves of Central European national security strategies between 1990 and 2020 through the analysis of their political context, aims and specific attributes based on various criteria. Results of the research indicate that the functions of national security strategies varied in different stages of the norm localisation process, which questions the traditional method of comparing explicit strategies through content analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
156923
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
What are the patterns of continuity and change in U.S. national security strategies? This article addresses this question by analyzing three major national-security and foreign-policy considerations: problems of definition, the ends of national interest, and the means of achieving them. Part I analyzes national security strategies published between 2002 and 2015. Part II compares the post–September 11, 2001, era with the 1987–2001 period. Across 28 years, 16 national security strategies and five presidencies, this research finds considerable continuity in problem definition and national-interest ends, and surprising continuity in means, even among the most controversial parts of the Bush Doctrine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|