2018
DOI: 10.7765/9781526130945
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

EU security governance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…10 9 A notable exception is the 2010 edited volume by Emil Kirchner and James Sperling on patterns of global governance, which contains a chapter on Russia (see Averre 2010). 10 See also Kirchner and Sperling (2007).…”
Section: Russia and European Security Governancementioning
confidence: 97%
“…10 9 A notable exception is the 2010 edited volume by Emil Kirchner and James Sperling on patterns of global governance, which contains a chapter on Russia (see Averre 2010). 10 See also Kirchner and Sperling (2007).…”
Section: Russia and European Security Governancementioning
confidence: 97%
“…This logic is also observable in the context of EU security governance's outlook (see also Kirchner, 2006;Kirchner & Sperling, 2007). In this context, we should also refresh the argument of defensive realism (see, among others, Kaufmann & Kaufmann, 1998;Walt, 1998) as a variation of understanding states as independent rational players, and predicting that international anarchy causes permanent worries about security threats.…”
Section: Baltic Journal Of European Studies Tallinn University Of Tecmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Another strand of research places emphasis on the EU's highly institutionalized governance style of conflict prevention, humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, counterterrorism and risk management (Kirchner, ; Kirchner and Sperling, ; Winn and Lord, ). Institutionalist‐constructivist studies have produced an impressive set of studies on the exceptional growth of institutional and norm structures for the EU's security governance (Boin et al, ; Bossong and Hegemann, ; Hollis, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is a strong bias in institutionalist theory that having more EU institutions will generate more EU action (Menon and Sedelmeier, ; Thomas, ), which leads to blind spots over factors that can explain when and why EU resources are used in specific cases and not in others. Finally, domestic EU theories might explain the formation and features of new institutional bargaining and governance structures (Kirchner and Sperling, ; Moravcsik, ), but have their own blind spots in explaining the resulting longer term outcomes of the cooperative agreements formed through such processes. In summary, existing theories distance us from the empirical reality of today's EU security and crisis managers and fail to recognize the important dynamics that explain the EU's security role.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%