¿Cómo se define el liderazgo en la defensa europea? Un análisis fsQCA

  1. Guillem Colom Piella 1
  2. Iván Medina Iborra 2
  3. José Antonio Peña Ramos 1
  1. 1 Universidad Pablo de Olavide
    info

    Universidad Pablo de Olavide

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02z749649

  2. 2 Universitat de València
    info

    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

Revista:
Revista de estudios políticos

ISSN: 0048-7694

Any de publicació: 2017

Número: 175

Pàgines: 111-144

Tipus: Article

DOI: 10.18042/CEPC/REP.175.03 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Altres publicacions en: Revista de estudios políticos

Resum

The paper addresses the issue of national leadership in the politics of European defence, in order to determine the relative value of different factors in the exercise of leadership, and the reasons why some countries are more willing than others to contribute to the development of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. The article starts by discussing the main contributions of the (neo)realist and constructivist approaches to European leadership on defence. It then highlights the process of development of EU defence policy and its setbacks. Leadership factors that characterize this development process are identified and employed to construct a fsQCA analysis, which assesses the leadership shown by different European countries. This analysis examines the necessary and the sufficient conditions characteristic both of leading countries and of those countries that do not show such leadership.

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Biehl, H., Giegerich, B. y Jonas, A. (2013). Strategic Cultures in Europe: Security and Defence Policies Across the Continent. Berlin: Springer. Disponible en: https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-658-01168-0.
  • Biscop, S. (2014). The Summit of Our Ambition? European Defence between Brussels and Wales. Security Policy Brief, 55, 1-6. Disponible en: http://egmontinstitute.be/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/SPB55-Summit-of-our-Ambition.pdf.
  • Breuer, F. (2010). Between Intergovernmentalism and socialisation: the Brusselization of ESDP. Firenze: European University Institute.
  • Cornish, P. y Edwards, G. (2001). Beyond the EU/NATO Dichotomy. International Affairs, 77 (3), 587-603. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00208.
  • De France, O. y Witney, N. (2013). Europe’s Strategic Cacophony. Bruxelles: ECFR. Directorate-General for External Policies (2011). The impact of the financial crisis on European defence. Bruxelles: Parlamento Europeo.
  • Dyson, T. (2013). Balancing Threat, Not Capabilities: European Defence Cooperation as Reformed Bandwagoning. Contemporary Security Policy, 34 (2), 387-391. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2013.808073.
  • Eilstrup, M. (2014). Europe’s Defence Dilemma. The International Spectator, 49 (2), 83-116. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2014.910728.
  • European Defence Agency (2013). Defence Data 2012. Bruxelles: EDA.
  • European Defence Agency (2014a). National Defence Data 2012 of the EDA participating Member States. Bruxelles: EDA.
  • European Defence Agency (2014b). Annual Report 2013. Bruxelles: EDA.
  • Fatjó, P. y Colom, G. (2005). La defensa de la Unión Europea: voluntades políticas y capacidades militares básicas. Barcelona: CIDOB.
  • Fu-Chang, Ch. (2011). European Defence Agency. Motor of Strengthening the EU’s Military Capabilities? European Foreign Affairs Review, 16 (1), 59-87.
  • Glaser, Ch. (1995). Realists as optimists: Cooperation as self-help. International Security, 19 (3), 50-90. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.2307/2539079.
  • Grevi, G., Helly, D. y Keohane, D. (eds.) (2009). European Security and Defence: the first 10 years. Paris: ISS-EU.
  • Helwig, N. (2014). The High Representative 3.0. Helsinki: FIIA.
  • Herz, J. (1951). Political Realism and Political Idealism. London: Cambridge University Press.
  • Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the Security Dilemma. World Politics, 30 (2), 167-214. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.2307/2009958.
  • Johnston, A. (1995). Thinking about Strategic Culture. International Security, 19 (4), 33-64. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.2307/2539119.
  • Larsen, H. (2014). NATO, EU and Russia after 2014: Great Power Politics and the Ukrainian crisis. Copenhagen: DIIS.
  • Longhurst, K. (2000). The Concept of Strategic Culture. En G. Kummel y A. D. Prüfert (eds.). Military Sociology: the Richness of a Discipline (pp. 301-310). BadenBaden: Nomos.
  • Marx, A., Cambré, B. y Rihoux, B. (2013). Crisp-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Organizational Studies. En P. C. Fiss, B. Cambré y A. Marx (eds.). Configurational Theory and Methods in Organizational Research (pp. 23-47). Bingley: Emerald. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0000038006.
  • Marx, A. y Dusa, A. (2011). Crisp-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA), Contradictions and Consistency Benchmarks for Model Specification. Methodological Innovations Online, 6 (2), 103-148. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.4256/mio.2010.0037.
  • Meyer, Ch. (2005). Convergence Towards a European Strategic Culture? A Constructivist Framework for Explaining Changing Norms. European Journal of International Relations, 11 (4), 523-549. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066105057899.
  • Pohl, B. (2013). Neither Bandwagoning nor Balancing: Explaining Europe’s Security Policy. Contemporary Security Policy, 34 (2), 353-373. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13523260.2013.805932.
  • Posen, B. (2006). European Union Security and Defense Policy: Response to Unipolarity? Security Studies, 15 (2), 149-186. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/0963641 0600829356.
  • Ragin, Ch. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Quantitative and Qualitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Ragin, Ch. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Ragin, Ch. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Rogers, J. (2009). From ‘Civilian Power’ to ‘Global Power’: Explicating the European Union’s ‘Grand Strategy’ though the Articulation of Discourse Theory. Journal of Common Market Studies, 47 (4), 831-862. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965. 2009.02007.x.
  • Rynning, S. (2011). Realism and the Common European Security and Defence Policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49 (1), 23-42. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14685965.2010.02127.x.
  • Schneider, C. y Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-Theoric Methods for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978113900 4244.
  • Toje, A. (2008). The consensus-expectations gap: explaining Europe’s ineffective foreign policy. Security Dialogue, 39 (1), 121-141. Disponible en: https://doi. org/10.1177/0967010607086826.
  • Trybus, M. (2014). Buying Defence and Security in Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511751462.
  • Witney, N. (2008). Re-energising Europe’s security and defence policy. London: ECFR.
  • Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338-353. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet