Transatlantic Relations in the New Strategic Landscape

Haglund, David G.; Mérand, Frédéric

doi:10.1177/002070201106600103

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It will not have significant leverage in the security sphere: the USA will guarantee continental security, regardless of the nature and extent of Canada's involvement, since it is predominantly the security of the United States itself. In addition, Canadian partners and allies have high expectations for a gradual restoration of Canada's defense capacity after decades of its being a secondary player 10 . Since Europeans regard Canadians as close partners who share values and approaches to conflict resolution, Canada has good prospects for partnership on the international arena 11 .…”

Section: Preconditions Of Canada-eu Security Relations Vectormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It means that in Ottawa there is no need to choose between Washington, London or Paris. However, there is an obvious paradox: good US-EU relations mean that Canada does not have to emphasize its "Europeanism", as in the case of refusing to intervene in Iraq 32 . In the previous strategic context, the confrontation between the US and the EU could be described as manifestations of "anti-Americanism".…”

Section: Relation Through the Prism Of Nato-esdp Co-existencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the problem of Canada's participation in European conflicts provoked internal confrontation, non-participation could lead to a split within the state. At that time, Europe was of strategic importance to Canada, as Canada was regarded as a "European land" 34 .…”

Section: Relation Through the Prism Of Nato-esdp Co-existencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Canada’s defense and security cooperation with the European Union

Antokhiv-Skolozdra¹

2020

Social Sciences: Regularities and Development Trends

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Preconditions Of Canada-eu Security Relations Vectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relation Through the Prism Of Nato-esdp Co-existencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Canada’s defense and security cooperation with the European Union

Antokhiv-Skolozdra¹

2020

Social Sciences: Regularities and Development Trends

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the literature on international relations (IR), transatlanticism refers to the close co-operation between North America and Europe over security, economic and political issues (Anderson et al, 2008; Fehl, 2012; Risse-Kappen, 1995). Several scholars have emphasized the fact that the United States and Canada continue to maintain strong ties with the European continent, ties that were forged by colonialism and have been sustained by a transatlantic military alliance (NATO) (Haglund and Mérand, 2010–2011; Pouliot, 2006). According to this perspective, despite the end of the Cold War and the subsequent regionalization of issues, Canada and the US share close ties with this “community of values” and have retained a sense of collective identity with Europe.…”

Section: Transatlantic Tiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shedding Light on Canada's Foreign Policy Alignment

Paquin¹,

Beauregard²

2013

Can J Pol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The purpose of this article is to explore the issue of alignment in Canadian foreign policy. The main research question is whether Canada's responses to foreign crises aligned with those of its allies, and if so, which allies and why. The study proceeds in two steps. First, it tests four major theoretical perspectives that could explain Canada's behaviour: continentalism, transatlantism, the Anglosphere argument and unilateralism. By performing a computer-generated content analysis, the article assesses these propositions by focusing on and comparing Canada's official declarations to those of the United States, France and Britain to six foreign crises that occurred between 2004 and 2011. Second, the analysis identifies whether there is a difference between the Harper and Martin governments' responses to foreign crises. The research provides quantitative and qualitative evidence suggesting that Canada's foreign policy alignment primarily tends toward a transatlantic orientation. It also shows that the Harper government was less in line with Washington than was the previous Liberal government of Paul Martin, which challenges the conventional wisdom of Canadian foreign policy.Résumé. Cet article explore l'enjeu de l'alignement en politique étrangère canadienne et pose la question de recherche suivante : est-ce qu'à l'égard des crises étrangère le Canada s'aligne sur les positions de ses alliés et, si oui, lesquels et pourquoi? Tout d'abord, l'article présente quatre perspectives théoriques susceptibles d'expliquer le comportement du Canada : le continentalisme, le transatlantisme, la thèse de l'anglosphère et celle de l'unilatéralisme. En ayant recours à une analyse de contenu assistée par ordinateur, cet article teste la validité de ces propositions en comparant les déclarations officielles du Canada à celles des États-Unis, de la France et de l'Angleterre à l'égard de six crises survenues entre 2004 et 2011. Ensuite, l'analyse cherche à identifier s'il y a une différence entre les réponses des gouvernements Harper et Martin à l'égard de ces crises. L'étude fournit des données empiriques de type qualitatif et quantitatif qui suggèrent que le Canada a eu une orientation transatlantique lors de la gestion de ces crises internationales. Elle montre également que le gouvernement Harper est moins aligné sur les positions de Washington que ne le fut le précédent gouvernement libéral, ce qui ébranle certaines idées communément admises en politique étrangère canadienne.

show abstract

“…On the European side, the first two decades, internal European integration was more developed in the area of agriculture, commerce, and trade matters rather than on security and defence matters. Thus, in addition to not having a clear sense of its strategic goals, the EU did not yet 'speak with one voice' on these more external political matters (Potter, 1999;Long, 2003;Barry, 2004;Bernard-Meunier, 2006;Croci and Verdun, 2006;Haglund and Mérand, 2010;Mérand and Vandemoortele, 2011). Second, there was also a lack of appreciation of the multilevel governance and federalist institutional set-up on both sides (Haglund, 2000;Benz, 2010;Verdun and Wood, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EU-Canada Strategic Partnership: Ups and downs

Verdun¹

2021

ANZJES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Signed in 1976, the EU-Canada relationship was the first bilateral agreement that the EU signed with an industrialised third country. Modest strengthening of the ties was achieved with the 2004 EU-Canada Partnership Agenda. A fully-fledged free trade agreement was in the works at this time, but suspended in 2006. The EU-Canada strategic partnership agreement (SPA) and the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) did not materialise until more than a decade later, in 2016. This paper focuses in particular on the strategic partnership dimension. It explores why an SPA was possible in 2016, but not before. To answer this question, the paper looks at four time periods. In so doing it explores the origins of the EU-Canada agreement, how the EU-Canada relationship changed over time, and examines how a more profound strategic partnership came about when it did. In its analysis it considers institutional, domestic and geopolitical factors. It briefly speculates about the possible future of this partnership.

show abstract

Transatlantic Relations in the New Strategic Landscape

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Canada’s defense and security cooperation with the European Union

Canada’s defense and security cooperation with the European Union

Shedding Light on Canada's Foreign Policy Alignment

EU-Canada Strategic Partnership: Ups and downs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About