Advertisement

Conclusions: Consequences of the Crisis of the Euro-Atlantic Security System and Prospects for Its Evolution

  • Ryszard ZiębaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

The tenth and final chapter presents the author’s conclusions from the analyses of the functioning of the Euro-Atlantic security system in the 21st century. The author confirms his hypothesis, according to which this system found itself in a state of crisis consisting of a return to rivalry for spheres of influence and the suspension of cooperation. By observing the redistribution of capabilities in the global international order, the author notes the gradual weakening of the West and the simultaneous increase of Russia’s international position and the worsening sense of security in Central European countries, which feel threatened by Russia. Drawing inspiration from the theses of the neorealists and from Charles Kupchan, the author predicts a further weakening of the importance of the Euro-Atlantic security system in the global international order and the growing anarchy of world security. In conclusion, he points to the need to introduce new institutional arrangements to halt these negative trends.

References

  1. Allisson, G. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape the Thucydides’s Trap?. London: Scribe.Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, J. (1996). NATO reform: Alliance policy and cooperative security. In I. Peters (Ed.), New security challenges: The adaptation of international institutions, reforming the UN, NATO, EU and CSCE since 1989 (pp. 123–152). New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckley, M. (2011/12). China’s Century? Why America’s edge will endure. International Security, 36(3), 41–78.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, S. G., Wohlforth, W. C. (2015/2016). The rise and fall of great powers in the Twenty-first century: China’s RISE and the fate of America’s global position. International Security, 40(3), 7–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charap, S., & Shapiro, J. (2015). Consequences of a new cold war. Survival, 57(2), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chivvis, Ch. S. (2012). Libya and the future of liberal intervention. Survival, 54(6), 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chong, J. I., & Hall, T. H. (2014). The lessons of 1914 to East Asia today: Missing the trees for the forest. International Security, 39(1), 7–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, S. F. (2014). The silence of American Hawks about Kiev’s atrocities, The Nation, July 17, 2014.Google Scholar
  9. Crocker, Ch. A. (2015). The strategic dilemma of a world adrift. Survival, 57(1), 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donnelly, Th. (2006). Countering aggressive rising powers: A clash of strategic cultures. Orbis, 50(3), 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dupuy, P.-M. (2000a). L’Ingérence humanitaire: vers uin nouveau droit international? Débats et commentaire du professeur Hubert Thierry. Défense nationale, 3, 32–36.Google Scholar
  12. Dupuy, P.-M. (2000b). Une évolution en quatre phases. Défense nationale, 3, 27–31.Google Scholar
  13. Fels, E. (2017). Shifting power in Asia-Pacific? The rise of China, Sino-us competition and regional middle powers allegiance. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Fravel, M. T. (2005). Regime insecurity and international cooperation; explaining China’s compromises in territorial disputes. International Security, 30(2), 46–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedberg, A. L. (2015). The debate over US China strategy. Survival, 57(3), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghebali, V.-I. (1999). Le Kosovo entre la guerre et la paix’. Défense nationale, 8–9, 62–79.Google Scholar
  17. Glaser, Ch L, & Fetter, S. (2016). Should the United States reject MAD? damage limitation and U.S. nuclear strategy toward China. International Security, 41(1), 49–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldgeier, J., & Suri, J. (2016). Revitalizing the U.S. national security strategy. The Washington Quarterly, 38(4), 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gompert, D. C., Cevallos, A. S., & Garafola, C. L. (2016). War with China: Thinking through the unthinkable. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hofmann, S. C., De Moraes, Bravo, Mendes, B., & Campbell, S. (2016). Investing in international security: Rising powers and organizational choices. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(3), 831–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaczmarski, M. (2017). Non-western visions of regionalism: China’s new silk road and Russia’s eurasian economic union. International Affairs, 93(6), 1357–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahl, C. (2017, September 26). The Myth of a ‘Better’ Iran deal. Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/26/the-myth-of-a-better-iran-deal/ (Accessed on Jan 27, 2018).
  23. Klieman, A. (2015). Great powers and geopolitics: International affairs in a rebalancing world. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kupchan, C. A. (2012). No one’s world: The west, the rising rest and the coming global turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Layne, Ch. (2018). The US–Chinese power shift and the end of the pax Americana. International Affairs, 94(1), 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leichtova, M. (2014). Misunderstanding Russia: Russian foreign policy and the west (pp. 145–146). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  27. Maher, R. (2016). The rise of China and the future of the atlantic alliance. Orbis, 60(3), 366–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mahmud Ali, S. (2015). US-China strategic competition towards a new power equilibrium. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. McCoubrey, H. (1999). Kosovo, NATO and international law. International Relations, XIV(5), 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mead, W. R. (2014). The return of geopolitics: The revenge of the revisionist powers. Foreign Affairs, 93(3), 69–79.Google Scholar
  31. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  32. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014, October 25). Can China rise peacefully? The National Interest, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar
  33. Parent, J. M., & Rosato, S. (2015). Balancing in neorealism. International Security, 40(2), 51–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Patrick, S. (2016). World order: What exactly are the rules? The Washington Quarterly, 39(1), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pieper, M. (2017). The transatlantic dialogue on Iran: the European subaltern and hegemonic constraints in the implementation of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. European Security, 26(1), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Putin, Erdogan and Rouhani meet in Sochi, Middle East Monitor, November 24, 2017. www.middleeastmonitor.com/20171124-putin-erdogan-and-rouhani-meet-in-sochi. (Accessed on Jan. 27, 2018).
  37. Quek, K., Johnston, A. I. (2017/18). Can China back down? Crisis De-escalation in the shadow of popular opposition. International Security, 42(3), 7–36.Google Scholar
  38. Remarks by Federica Mogherini on the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran nuclear deal), European Union External Action, Luxemburg, 16/10/2017. https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/33997/Remarks%20by%20Federica%20Mogherini%20on%20the%20implementation%20of%20the%20Joint%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20of%20Action%20(Iran%20nuclear%20deal) (Accessed on January 27, 2018).
  39. Ronzitti, N. (1999). Lessons of international law from NATO’s armed intervention against the federal republic of yugoslavia. The International Spectator, XXXIV(3), 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policies. World Politics, 51(1), 144–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sakwa, R. (2017). Russia against the rest: The post-cold war crisis in world order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schweller, R. L. (2003). The progressiveness of neoclassical realism. In C. Elman, M.F. & Elman (Eds.), Progress in international relations theory appraising the field (pp. 311–348). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sénarclens, P. (2000). Le ‘droit d’ingérence’ et inutile et sa rhétorique peut-être néfaste. Défense nationale, 3, 6–13.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, N. R. (2015). The EU and Russia’s conflicting regime preferences in Ukraine: Assessing regime promotion strategies in the scope of the Ukraine crisis. European Security, 24(4), 525–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stefan, C. G. (2017). On non-Western norm shapers: Brazil and the responsibility while protecting. European Journal of International Security, 2(1), 88–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stent, A. E. (2014). The limits of partnership: U.S.—Russian relations in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stuenkel, O. (2016). Post-Western world: How emerging powers are remaking global order. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sussex, M. (2017). The triumph of Russian national security policy? Russia’s rapid rebound. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71(5), 499–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taliaferro, J. W. (2006). State building for future wars: Neoclassical realism and the resource extractive state. Security Studies, 15(3), 464–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. The Alliance’s Strategic Concept, Approved by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington D.C. on 23rd and 24th April 1999. NATO Press Release NAC-S(99)65, 24 April 1999.Google Scholar
  51. Yost, D. S. (2015). The budapest memorandum and Russia’s intervention in ukraine. International Affairs, 91(3), 457–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zięba, R. (2000). NATO wobec konfliktów etnicznych na terenie Jugosławii. Stosunki Międzynarodowe—International Relations, 21(1–2), 33–52.Google Scholar
  53. Zięba, R. (2004). Cele polityki zagranicznej państwa. In R. Zięba (Ed.), Wstęp do teorii polityki zagranicznej państwa (pp. 37–58). Toruń: Adam Marszałek.Google Scholar
  54. Ziegler, Ch. E. (Ed.). (2016). Critical perspectives on the responsibility to protect: BRICS and beyond. International Relations, Special Issue, 30(3), 259–405.Google Scholar

Bibliography

  1. Allison, R. (2014). Russian ‘deniable’ intervention in Ukraine: How and why Russia broke the rules. International Affairs, 90(6), 1255–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atlantic News, No. 2670, October 25, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. Cienski, J., & Wagstyl, S. Poland proposes an EU army tied to NATO. Financial Times, November 5, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. Ciupiński, A. (2013). Wspólna Polityka Bezpieczeństwa i Obrony Unii Europejskiej: geneza—rozwój—funkcjonowanie. Warsaw: Difin.Google Scholar
  5. Warsaw Summit Communiqué Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Warsaw 8–9 July 2016. NATO Press Release (2016) 100, 9 July 2016.Google Scholar
  6. Dunay, P., & Herd, G. P. (2010). Redesigning Europe? The pitfalls and the promises of the European security treaty initiative. OSCE Yearbook 2009, 15, 77–98. Baden-Baden: Nomos, IFSH.Google Scholar
  7. Ex-Verteidigungsminister Volker Rühe fordert Aufnahme Russlands in die NATO, Der Spiegel, November 6, 2010.Google Scholar
  8. Fülöp, M. (1994). La politique étrangère hongroise dans le contexte de l’Europe central. Politique étrangère, 59(1), 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glaser, Ch L. (1993). Why NATO is still best? future security arrangements for Europe. International Security, 8(1), 5–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon, Ph H. (2002). NATO After 11 September. Survival, 43(4), 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heraclides, A. (1993). Security and Co-operation in Europe: The Human Dimension, 1972–1992. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  12. Kontseptsiya natsional’noy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii, utv. Ukazom Prezidenta RF ot 17 dekabrya 1997 g. No. 1300 [The Concept of National Security of the Russian Federation, Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1997 No. 1300], https://zakonbase.ru/content/base/24975. Accessed January 27, 2018).
  13. Kontseptsiya vneshney politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, Utverzhdena Ukazom Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 30 noyabrya 2016g. N 640 [The concept of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation, Approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 1504 30, 2016 No. 640], http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201612010045?1505index=1&rangeSize=1. Accessed January 27, 2018. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1997 No. 1300], https://zakonbase.ru/content/base/24975. Accessed January 27, 2018).
  14. Kupchan, Ch A. (2010). How enemies become friends: The sources of stable peace. Princeton-Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Le Guelte, G. (1998). Les essais nucléaires de l’Inde et du Pakistan hier, aujourd’hui, demain. Défense nationale, 11, 35–36.Google Scholar
  16. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014b). Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs, 93(5), 1–12.Google Scholar
  17. Memento défense-désarmement 1995/96. L’Europe et la sécurité internationale, Bruxelles: GRIP 1996.Google Scholar
  18. Meric, C. (1996). Bilan du processus du désarmement conventionel en Europe (p. 320). In Memento défense-désarmement 1995/96. L’Europe et la sécurité internationale, Bruxelles: GRIP; Lachowski, Z. (1996). Conventional arms control and security cooperation in Europe (p. 716, 731). SIPRI Yearbook 1996, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Nuttall, S. J. (2000). European foreign policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oliker, O. (2017). Putinism, populism and the defence of liberal democracy. Survival, 59(1), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Putin’s Prepared Remarks at 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy. Washington Post, February 12, 2007.Google Scholar
  22. Rapport pour le President de la République Franςaise sur les conséquences du retour de la France dans le Commandement Integre de l’OTAN, sur l’avenir de la relation transatlantique et les perspectives de l’Europe de la défense, novembre 14, 2012.Google Scholar
  23. Rieker, P., & Lundby Gjerde, K. (2016). The EU, Russia and the potential for dialogue—Different readings of the crisis in Ukraine. European Security, 25(3), 304–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tertrais, B. (2015). Iran: An experiment in strategic risk-taking. Survival, 57(5), 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tocci, N. (2016). The responsibility to protect in Libya and Syria: Europe, the USA and global human rights governance. In R. Alcaro, J. Peterson, & E. Greco (Eds.), The West and the global shift power: Transatlantic relations and global governance (pp. 221–246). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vayrynen, R. (1971). On the definition and measurement of small power status. Cooperation and Conflict, 6(1), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (1987). International relations theory: Realism, pluralism, globalism, and beyond. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  28. Zięba, R. (2000a). Miejsce Europy w ogólnej koncepcji bezpieczeństwa USA u progu XXI wieku. In E. Cziomer (Ed.), Udział USA w systemie bezpieczeństwa europejskiego (pp. 51–65). Kraków: Meritum.Google Scholar
  29. Zięba, R. (2015b). Teoria bezpieczeństwa. In R. Zięba, S. Bieleń, & J. Zając (Eds.), Teorie i podejścia badawcze w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych (pp. 87–106). Warsaw: Wydział Dziennikarstwa i Nauk Politycznych UW.Google Scholar
  30. Zięba, R. (2015c). Poland and France: A cross analysis of security threats and national interests. In M. de Langlois (Ed.), Vers une nouvelle stratégie européenne de sécurité, Laboratoires de l’IRSEM, (Institut de recherche stratégique de l’École Militaire), 25, 46–54.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Political Science and International StudiesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations