L’Europe dans la culture stratégique canadienne, 1949-2009

Mérand, Frédéric; Vandemoortele, Antoine

doi:10.7202/038277ar

Cited by 10 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4Europeanism is therefore separate from (trans-)Atlanticism. For helpful discussions, see Long (2003), Mérand and Vandemoortele (2009) and DeBardeleben and Leblond (2010). …”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canada in the United Nations General Assembly from Trudeau to Trudeau

Vučetić

Ramadanović

2019

Can J Pol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All Canadian governments say that Canada must look to its friends and allies and like-minded partners to achieve greater cooperation on global issues. But who are these countries exactly? To gain a better understanding of where Ottawa stands in the world, with whom and under what conditions, we analyze Canada's voting patterns in the United Nations General Assembly from 1980 to 2017. We find that Canada's overall record tends toward that of Western European states. We find no evidence of greater affinity with US positions either when the Democrats are in power in Washington or when the conservative parties are in power in Ottawa. We identify a sharp pro-US turn in the Harper years and also confirm that the government of Justin Trudeau started off by maintaining rather than reversing this trend.

show abstract

“…4Europeanism is therefore separate from (trans-)Atlanticism. For helpful discussions, see Long (2003), Mérand and Vandemoortele (2009) and DeBardeleben and Leblond (2010). …”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canada in the United Nations General Assembly from Trudeau to Trudeau

Vučetić

Ramadanović

2019

Can J Pol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But Canada's role in the world may not just have to do with what kind of actions it takes, but with whom it takes them. In particular, three partnerships reflect three broad views about Canada's preferred partnerships: global-minded internationalism, continentalism and Atlanticism (Massie, 2009; Mérand and Vandemoortele, 2009). Each corresponds to a particular partnership logic, corresponding to the United Nations, the United States, and Canada's principal transatlantic allies.…”

Section: Reasons For Supporting Peace Operations: Substance Partnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in a realist version, Canada seeks to maintain its alliances through participation in joint missions (Lagassé and Robinson, 2008; Sokolsky, 2002). Under a more constructivist approach, Canada has different strategic cultures with corresponding ideas about who Canada's appropriate partners are, especially the United States, Europe and the United Nations (Massie, 2009; Mérand and Vandemoortele, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Partnerships in Military Interventions and the Canadian Public

McLauchlin¹

2016

Can J Pol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do Canadians’ preferences for Canada's role in the world depend on who Canada acts with and not just what Canada does? This question is particularly important in the context of overseas military intervention, which Canada never undertakes on its own. This paper presents a survey experiment measuring how support for a hypothetical peace operation changes with the leader of the mission. Missions led by the United Nations and by Canada's European allies receive more support than American-led missions do, especially among respondents who also favour peace operations for substantive reasons. The finding suggests that the UN and the European connection are alternative ways for a mission to benefit from a preference for multilateralism. While the results confirm some tension between American-led missions and internationalism, European partnerships may offer a way of reconciling an interest in alliances with the internationalist Canadian public.

show abstract

“…For Canada, the ending of the Bush administration has removed much of the “Euro‐identity” upsurge much in evidence during the first half of this decade, and especially at the height of the Iraq crisis in 2002 and 2003. Those were years when scholars and others in Canada were searching for evidence that the country remained what they argued it had always been, a “European” kind of place (Bernard‐Meunier, 2005; Mérand and Vandemoortele, 2009; Monière, 2004; Resnick, 2005). Elsewhere in the transatlantic world, the election of the much‐liked Barack Obama in November 2008 has not led to a recementing of transatlantic ties; if anything, there has been a slackening of those ties, because Europe has come to feel that the new president has shown disrespect for it, and because Obama has not gone out of his way to stroke European egos by making flattering references to the crucial importance of the old continent to the United States (Volker, 2010).…”

Section: A Question Of “Relevance”mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pensando lo imposible: Why Mexico Should Be the Next New Member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Haglund

2010

Latin American Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is a speculative inquiry into the case for (and to an extent, the case against) Mexican membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). No one today—on either side of the Atlantic—is advocating for Mexico's joining the alliance, nor does this article depend on such advocacy. Rather, the question of Mexico's hypothetical adhesion to the alliance is intended to highlight interests that this country and the members of NATO have in the security realm. The article adopts a point of departure that acknowledges how “impossible,” if not absurd, the prospect of Mexican membership must seem to the sentient observer of contemporary security reality. Not too long ago, it was thought impossible that some of today's current allies, including former republics of the Soviet Union, could ever join the Western alliance. The article then proceeds to analyze several “interests” that Mexico might objectively be said to have in NATO membership and examines the case for membership from the alliance perspective, as well as from the perspective of Mexico's North American Free Trade Agreement partners, the United States and Canada. Este artículo es una búsqueda especulativa sobre el apoyo a (y hasta cierto punto el argumento contra) la membresía de México a la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN). Hoy nadie—en ningún lado del Océano Atlántico—aboga por el ingreso de México a la alianza, y este artículo no se aferra a tal idea. Se pretende más bien pensar en la adhesión hipotética de México a la alianza como una manera de realzar los intereses mexicanos y de los miembros de la OTAN en el área de seguridad. El artículo toma como punto de partida lo “imposible,” si no absurdo, que podría parecer al observador sensible de la realidad de la seguridad contemporánea la posibilidad de la membresía mexicana. Hace poco parecía imposible que algunos de los aliados actuales, entre éstos las ex repúblicas de la Unión Soviética, pudieran unirse a la alianza occidental. Entonces el artículo analiza los “intereses” que podría decirse México tiene respecto a su membresía a la OTAN, y también examina dicha membresía desde la perspectiva de la alianza, así como desde la perspectiva de los miembros del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN), Estados Unidos y Canadá.

show abstract

L’Europe dans la culture stratégique canadienne, 1949-2009

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

Canada in the United Nations General Assembly from Trudeau to Trudeau

Canada in the United Nations General Assembly from Trudeau to Trudeau

Partnerships in Military Interventions and the Canadian Public

Pensando lo imposible: Why Mexico Should Be the Next New Member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About