Abstract
If 9/11 is to be regarded as a watershed in global politics then it would be logical to assume that NATO, the globe’s most durable, extensive and powerful alliance, would be bound up in that process of transformation. For NATO, 9/11 accelerated changes already in train (namely, the need to focus out of area) and in so doing made possible a role for the alliance (fighting an expeditionary war in Afghanistan, for instance) that would otherwise have been inconceivable. A decade on, NATO’s major powers have modified significantly their assumptions of what can be achieved in far-flung operations driven, in part, by the demanding experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan, and, in part, by the operational constraints of defence austerity. These processes have shone a light on NATO. Its complex mission in Afghanistan conducted simultaneously with a range of other operations and initiatives (enlargement, missile defence and partnerships) indicates a body that continues to be adaptable and relevant. Yet, at the same time, the multiplication of tasks (some of which have courted the risk of failure) seemingly betoken an alliance that is directionless and stretched to the limit. In that sense, the period since 9/11 has been yet one more chapter of a familiar story of NATO in crisis. What that means and whether it has substance is a question that has policy, empirical and theoretical relevance; this chapter is primarily concerned with the latter.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Derived from J.S. Duffield, C. Michota and A.A. Miller, ‘Alliances’, in P.D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008), p. 294.
See, for instance, B. Obama, ‘Europe and America, Aligned for the Future’, International Herald Tribune, 19 November 2010.
C. Grant, ‘Does this War Show that NATO No Longer has a Serious Military Role?’, The Independent, 16 October 2001.
I. Tharoor, ‘Decline of the West’, Time, 28 May 2012, p. 55.
Cited in M. Webber, ‘NATO’s Post — Cold War Operations in Europe’, in J. Sperling and S.V. Papcosma (eds.), NATO after Sixty Years: A Stable Crisis (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2012), p. 65.
S. Abrial (NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation), ‘NATO in a Time of Austerity’, International Herald Tribune, 18 May 2012.
W.J. Theis, Why NATO Endures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
For this charge, see H. Mueler, ‘A Theory of Decay of Security Communities with an Application to the Present State of the Atlantic Alliance’ (Institute of European Studies, University of California, Berkeley), Paper 060409, 2006, pp. 1–2.
R.N. Burns, D.M. Wilson and J. Lightfoot, Anchoring the Alliance (Washington DC: Atlantic Council, 2012), p. 11.
T. Valasek, ‘Introduction’, in T. Valasek (ed.), All Alone? What US Retrenchment Means for Europe and NATO (London: Centre for European Reform, 2012), p. 1.
K.-H. Kamp, ‘The Transatlantic Link after Chicago’, NDC Research Report, 2012, p. 1.
B. Tertais, ‘The Changing Nature of Military Alliances’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 27 (2), 2004, p. 143.
See T.S. Wilkins, ‘“Alignment” not “Alliance” — the Shifting Paradigm of International Security Cooperation: Toward a Conceptual Taxonomy of Alignment’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 38 (1), 2011, p. 59.
D. Scott Bennett, ‘Testing Alternative Models of Alliance Duration, 1816–1984’, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41 (3), 1997, p. 870.
O. Holsti, P.T. Hopmann and J.D. Sullivan, Unity and Disintegration in International Alliances: Comparative Studies (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973), pp. 93–94, 101–102.
B.M. Russett, ‘An Empirical Typology of International Military Alliances’, Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 15 (2), 1971, pp. 265–267.
G.H. Snyder, Alliance Politics (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997);
S.M. Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1987);
P.A. Weitsman, Dangerous Alliances: Proponents of Peace, Weapons of War (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004).
M. Olsen and R. Zeckhauser, ‘An Economic Theory of Alliances’, Review of Economic Statistics, Vol. 48 (3), 1966, pp. 266–279.
J. Lepgold, ‘NATO’s Post-Cold War Collective Action Problem’, International Security, Vol. 23 (1), 1998, p. 93.
J. Ringsmose, ‘NATO Burden-Sharing Redux: Continuity and Change after the Cold War’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 31 (2), 2010, pp. 326–330.
E. Hallams and B. Schreer, ‘Towards a “Post-American” Alliance? NATO Burden-Sharing after Libya’, International Affairs, Vol. 88 (2), 2012, pp. 313–327.
See T. Sandler and K. Hartley, The Political Economy of NATO: Past, Present, and into the 21st Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999);
I.D. Ivanov, ‘The Relevance of Heterogeneous Clubs in Explaining Contemporary NATO Politics’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies, Vol. 8 (4), 2010, pp. 337–361.
J.R. Deni, The Future of American Landpower: Does Forward Presence Still Matter? The Case of the Army in Europe (Carlisle, PA: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, 2012), pp. 22–23.
W. Park, Defending the West: A History of NATO (Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1986);
A. Wenger, ‘The Politics of Military Planning: Evolution of NATO’s Strategy’, in V. Mastny, S.G. Holtsmark and A. Wenger (eds.), War Plans and Alliances in the Cold War: Threat Perceptions in East and West (Oxford: Routledge, 2006), pp. 165–192.
J. Pressman, Warring Friends: Alliance Restraint in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008), pp. 27–29.
J. Joffe, ‘Europe’s American Pacifier’, Foreign Policy, (54), 1984.
J.S. Duffield, ‘NATO’s Functions after the Cold War’, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 109(5), 1994–1995, pp. 763–787.
E.H. Fedder, ‘The Concept of Alliance’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 12 (1), 1968, pp. 78–79.
P.T. Jackson, ‘Defending the West: Occidentalism and the Formation of NATO’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 11 (3), 2003, pp. 223–252.
S.R. Sloan, NATO, the European Union, and the Atlantic Community (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), p. 74.
See also B.S. Klein, ‘How the West was One: Representational Politics of NATO’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34 (3), 1990, pp. 311–325.
See, respectively, C. Coker, ‘NATO as a Postmodern Alliance’, in S.P. Ramet and C. Ingerbritsen (eds.), Coming in from the Cold: Changes in US–European Interactions since 1980 (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002), pp. 16–30;
P. Cornish, Partnership in Crisis: the US, Europe and the Fall and Rise of NATO (London: the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1997), p. 9;
A. Mattelaer, ‘How Afghanistan has Strengthened NATO’, Survival, Vol.53(6), 2011–2012, p.136.
This selection corresponds roughly to the typology of Jack Snyder who suggests that realism, liberalism and idealism (constructivism) are the three dominant theories of IR. See his ‘One World, Rival Theories’, Foreign Policy, (145), 2004, pp. 53–62. And for a similar attempt to apply these three theories to NATO see Z. Barany and R. Rauchhaus, ‘Explaining NATO’s Resilience: Is International Relations Theory Useful?’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 32 (2), 2011, pp. 286–307.
S. Rynning, NATO Renewed: The Power and Purpose of Transatlantic Cooperation (New York and Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005);
S. Rynning, ‘NATO: Within and Between European International Society’, Journal of European Integration, Vol. 33 (2), 2011, pp. 139–158.
R. Sil and P.J. Katzenstein, Beyond Paradigms: Analytical Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), p. 3.
K. Booth, Theory of World Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 172.
J.J. Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, Vol. 15 (1), 1990, pp. 5–6.
K. Waltz, ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security, Vol. 18 (2), 1993, pp. 75–76.
K. Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, International Security, Vol. 25 (1), 2000, pp. 19–20.
C. Glaser, ‘Structural Realism in a More Complex World’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 29 (3), 2003, p. 409.
Some neo-realists argue that unipolarity is temporary, but many agree that unipolarity describes the present and that this state of affairs is likely to persist for the foreseeable future (irrespective of the rising economic and military credentials of China). See S.B. Brooks and W.C. Wohlforth, World out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008)
W.C. Wohlforth, ‘How Not to Evaluate Theories’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 56 (1), 2012, pp. 1–4.
For an assessment of the relative power credentials of the United States and China see M. Beckley, ‘China’s Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure’, International Security, Vol.36(3), 2011/2012, pp. 41–78.
T.S. Mowle and D.H. Sacko, ‘Global NATO: Bandwagoning in a Unipolar World’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 28 (3), 2007, p. 604.
A. Hyde-Price, European Security in the Twenty-First Century: the Challenge of Multipolarity (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007), pp. 86–90;
J.J. Mearsheimer, ‘Why is Europe Peaceful Today?’, European Political Science, Vol. 9 (3), 2010, pp. 388–90.
S. Jones, The Rise of European Security Cooperation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 198–199;
S. Walt, ‘Alliances in a Unipolar World’, World Politics, Vol. 61 (1), 2009, p. 117.
R.A. Pape, ‘Soft Balancing against the United States’, International Security, Vol. 30 (1), 2005. J. Howorth and A. Menon, ‘Still Not Pushing Back: Why the European Union is Not Balancing the United States’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 53 (5), 2009, pp. 735–736.
R.L. Schweller, ‘Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In’, International Security, Vol. 19 (1), 1994, p. 96.
R.J. Art, ‘Europe Hedges its Security Bets’, in T.V. Paul et al. (eds.), Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004), pp. 184–85.
G. Press-Barnathan, ‘Managing the Hegemon: NATO under Unipolarity’, Security Studies, Vol. 15 (2), 2006; T. Ohtomo, ‘Bandwagoning to Dampen Suspicion: NATO and the US–Japan Alliance after the Cold War’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 3 (1), 2003, p. 45.
R. O. Keohane and C.N. Murphy, ‘International Institutions’, in M. Hawkesworth and M. Kogan (eds.), Encyclopedia of Government and Politics, Volume 2 (New York and London: Routledge, 1992), p. 871;
J.G. March and J.P. Olsen, ‘Elaborating the “New Institutionalism”’, in R.A.W. Rhodes, S.A. Binder and B.A. Rockman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 3.
See C.A. Wallander, H. Haftendorn and R.O. Keohane, ‘Introduction’, in H. Haftendorn, R.O. Keohane and C.A. Wallander (eds.), Imperfect Unions: Security Institutions over Time and Space (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 1–20.
P.A. Hall and R.C.R. Taylor, ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, Political Studies, Vol. 44 (5), 1996, pp. 944–946;
R.O. Keohane and L.L. Martin, ‘The Promise of Institutionalist Theory’, International Security, Vol. 20 (1), 1995, pp. 41–42.
R.O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (second edition) (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 102.
R.B. McCalla, ‘NATO’s Persistence after the Cold War’, International Organization, Vol. 50 (3), 1996, pp. 462–463.
C. Wallander, ‘Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO after the Cold War’, International Organisation, Vol. 54 (4), 2000, pp. 713–717.
C.A. Wallander and R.O. Keohane, ‘Risk, Threat and Security Institutions’, in H. Haftendorn, R.O. Keohane and C.A. Wallander (eds.), Imperfect Unions: Security Institutions over Time and Space (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 40–47.
S.C. Hofmann and F. Mérand, ‘Regional Organizations à la carte: the Effects of Institutional Elasticity’, in T.V. Paul (ed.), International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
B. Koremenos, C. Lipson and D. Snidal, ‘The Rational Design of International Institutions’, in B. Koremenos, C. Lipson and D. Snidal (eds.), The Rational Design of International Institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 7.
A. Menon and J. Welsh, ‘Understanding NATO’s Sustainability: The Limits of Institutionalist Theory’, Global Governance, Vol. 17(1), 2011, pp. 87, 90.
R.O. Keohane, ‘Twenty Years of Institutional Liberalism’, International Relations, Vol. 26 (2), 2012, p. 135.
G.J. Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), chapters 6 and 8.
G.J. Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan: the Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011), pp. 80–81.
D. Tierney, ‘Multilateralism: America’s Insurance Policy Against Loss’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 17 (4), 2010, pp. 655–678.
S.E. Kreps, Coalitions of Convenience: United States Military Interventions after the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 11.
For this distinction see T. Balzacq, ‘Constructivism and Securitization Studies’, in M.D. Cavelty and V. Mauer (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), p. 57;
B. Buzan and L. Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 191–199.
I. Hurd, ‘Constructivism’, in C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 298–300.
The most influential works here are P. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996);
M. Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996);
A. Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
M. Hampton, ‘NATO, Germany, and the United States: Creating Positive Identity in Trans-atlantia’, Security Studies, Vol. 8 (2–3), 1999, p. 239.
F. Schimmelfennig, The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 72.
V.M. Kitchen, The Globalization of NATO: Intervention, Security and Identity (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), pp. 26, 118–120.
See also, F. Schimmelfennig, ‘NATO Enlargement: A Constructivist Explanation’, Security Studies, Vol.8(2/3), 1998/1999, pp. 198–234.
H. Sjursen, ‘On the Identity of NATO’, International Affairs, Vol. 80 (4), 2004, pp. 699–700.
See the discussion of constructivism in G. Hellmann, ‘Inevitable Decline versus Predestined Stability: Disciplinary Explanations of the Evolving Transatlantic Order’, in J. Anderson, G.J. Ikenberry and T. Risse (eds.), The End of the West? Crisis and Change in the Atlantic Order (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008), pp. 39–40.
M.C. Williams (with I.B. Neumann), Culture and Security: Symbolic Power and the Politics of International Security (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), pp. 73, 76.
A. Behnke, NATO’s Security Discourse after the Cold War: Representing the West (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), pp. 180–191.
F. Chernoff, Theory and Metatheory in International Relations: Concepts and Contending Accounts (New York and Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), p. 38.
S.M. Walt, ‘NATO’s Future (In Theory)’, in P. Martin and M.R. Brawley (eds.), Alliance Politics, Kosovo, and NATO’s War: Allied Force or Forced Allies? (New York and Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000), pp. 21–22.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Mark Webber
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Webber, M. (2013). NATO after 9/11: Theoretical Perspectives. In: Hallams, E., Ratti, L., Zyla, B. (eds) NATO beyond 9/11. New Security Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230391222_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230391222_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-35152-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-39122-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)