Advertisement

The Security Concepts of Participants in the Euro-Atlantic Security System

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

Abstract

The fourth chapter focuses on how program documents concerning the security concepts (strategies and doctrines) of the principal participants of the Euro-Atlantic system identify threats and challenges to security, and how they present the aims, means and methods of security policy. The author analyses the security concepts of the US, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Poland as a middle power, NATO, the EU, Russia, and the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization. He notes that terrorism is identified as the main threat by almost all those entities and shows the evolution of their perception of other challenges and threats. In the final section, the author points to similarities and differences between security concepts in light of the theory of international relations. He concludes that the rise of divergent interests among the participants of the Euro-Atlantic security system is accompanied by a return to the traditional, militarized understanding of security, in keeping with the premises of the realist paradigm.

References

  1. A secure Europe in a better Word: European Security Strategy (December 12, 2003). Brussels: The European Union.Google Scholar
  2. A strong Britain in an age of uncertainty: The national security strategy. Presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty, London, October 2010.Google Scholar
  3. Active engagement, modern defence: Strategic concept for the defence and security of the members of the North Atlantic treaty organization. Adopted by Heads of States and Government at the NATO Summit in Lisbon 10–20 November 2010, NATO, Brussels 2010.Google Scholar
  4. Aron, R. (1962). Paix et guerre entre les nations. Paris: Calmann Lévy.Google Scholar
  5. Berkowitz, M., & Bock, P. G. (Eds.). (1965). American national security. A reader in theory on policy (p. X). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Biscop, S. (2005). The European security strategy: A global agenda for a positive power. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Charter of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, October 7, 2002. http://odkb-csto.org/documents/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=1896. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  8. Collins, A. (2004). States-induced security dilemma: Maintaining the tragedy. Cooperation and Conflict, 39(1), 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornish, P., & Dorman, A. M. (2015). Complex security and strategic latency: The UK strategic defence and security review 2015. International Affairs, 91(2), 251–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Défense et Sécurité nationale. Le Livre blanc (juin 2008). Paris: La documentation française.Google Scholar
  11. Dombrowski, P., & Reich, S. (2017). Does Donald Trump have a grand strategy? International Affairs, 93(5), 1013–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gilpin, R. (1984). War and change in world politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Glaser, C. L. (1993). Why NATO is still best? Future security arrangements for Europe. International Security, 18(1), 5–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glaser, C. L. (1997). The security dilemma revisited. World Politics, 50(1), 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herz, J. H. (1950). Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma. World Politics, 2(2), 158–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under security dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Juul, P., & Gude, K. (2017, May 1). Reckless endangerment: President Trump and the use of military force. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2017/05/01/431566/reckless-endangerment-president-trump-use-military-force/. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  19. Keohane, R. O., Nye, J. S., & Hoffmann, S. (Eds.). (1993). After the cold war: International institutions and state strategies in Europe, 1989–1991. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kolodziej, E. A. (2005). Security and international relations (pp. 26–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kontseptsiya natsional’noy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii, utv. Ukazom Prezidenta RF ot 10 yanvarya 2000g. No. 24 [The concept of national security of the Russian Federation, Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 10 January 2000 No. 24]. http://kremlin.ru/acts/bank/14927/page/2. Accessed January 17, 2018.
  22. Kontseptsiya natsional’noy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii, utv. Ukazom Prezidenta RF ot 17 dekabrya 1997g. N 1300 [The concept of national security of the Russian Federation, Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1997 N 1300]. https://zakonbase.ru/content/base/24975. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  23. 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 30, 2016 No. 640]. http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201612010045?index=1&rangeSize=1. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  24. Kontseptsiya vneshney politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 15 июля 2008 goda [The foreign policy concept of the Russian federation], July 15, 2008. http://kremlin.ru/acts/news/785. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  25. La France face au terrorism: Livre blanc du Gouvernement sur la sécurité intérieure face au terrorism (2006). Paris: La documentation française.Google Scholar
  26. Lasconjarias, G., & de Saint-Victor, F. (2017, October 27). Chasing Grandeur? What you need to know about the 2017 French strategic review. War on the Rocks (Texas National Security Network). https://warontherocks.com/2017/10/chasing-grandeur-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-2017-french-strategic-review/. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  27. Lidery stran ODKB utverdili strategiyu kollektivnoy bezopasnosti do 2025 goda [Leaders of CSTO countries approved collective security strategy until 2025]. http://www.belta.by/politics/view/lidery-stran-odkb-utverdili-strategiju-kollektivnoj-bezopasnosti-do-2025-goda-214775-2016/. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  28. Livre blanc: défense et sécurité nationale 2013 (2013). Paris: La documentation française.Google Scholar
  29. Mälksoo, M. (2016). From the ESS to the EU global strategy: External policy, internal purpose. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 374–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  31. Missorili, A. (Ed.). (2003). From Copenhagen to Brussels. European defence: Core documents, Vol. IV, Chaillot Paper, No. 67, December 2003, pp. 324–333.Google Scholar
  32. Morgenthau, H. J. (1967). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (4th ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  33. Moul, W. (2002). Dangerous balances, 1816–1989: A simple theory with longitudinal evidence. Review of International Studies, 28(4), 657–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mróz, M. (2000). Zmiany w koncepcji strategicznej Rosji 1997–2000. Informacja (Warsaw: Sejm, Biuro Studiów i Ekspertyz), No. 719.Google Scholar
  35. National security strategy (February 2015). Washington, DC: The White House.Google Scholar
  36. National security strategy (May 2010). Washington, DC: The White House.Google Scholar
  37. National security strategy of the Republic of Poland (2003). Warsaw: National Security Bureau.Google Scholar
  38. National security strategy of the Republic of Poland (2007). Warsaw: National Security Bureau.Google Scholar
  39. National security strategy of the Republic of Poland (2014). Warsaw: National Security Bureau.Google Scholar
  40. National security strategy of the United States of America (December 2017). Washington, DC: The White House.Google Scholar
  41. National security strategy and strategic and defence review 2015: A secure and prosperous United Kingdom. Presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty, London, November 2015.Google Scholar
  42. National strategy for counterterrorism (June 1, 2011). Washington, DC: The White House.Google Scholar
  43. Nau, H. R. (2017, August 28). Trump’s conservative internationalism. National Review.Google Scholar
  44. Nau, H. R. (2018). Why “Conservative”, not liberal, internationalism? Orbis, 62(1), 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ostryna, S. (2016, Ocbober 24). Strategiya kollektivnoy bezopasnosti ODKB ne vidit ni odnoy ugrozy [CSTO collective security strategy does not see a threat]. Novosti VPK, Belarus, October 24, 2016. http://vpk.name/news/166422_strategiya_kollektivnoi_bezopasnosti_odkb_ne_vidit_ni_odnoi_ugrozyi.html. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  46. Polish foreign policy strategy 2017–2021 (2017). Warsaw: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Poland.Google Scholar
  47. Popescu, I. (2018). Conservative internationalism and the Trump administration? Orbis, 62(1), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Porter, A. L., & Bendiek, A. (2012). Counterterrorism cooperation in the transatlantic security community. European Security, 21(4), 497–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Remarks by President Trump to the 72nd session of the United Nations general assembly (September 19, 2017). New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  50. Report on the implementation of the European security strategy—providing security in a changing world, Doc. S407/08, Brussels, December 11, 2008.Google Scholar
  51. Reus-Smith, C. (1992). Realists and resistance Utopias: Community, security and political action in the New Europe. Millennium, 21(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Revue Stratégique de Défense et de Sécurité Nationale 2017 (2017). République Française.Google Scholar
  53. Rieker, P. (2017). French foreign policy in a changing world: Practising Grandeur. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sakwa, R. (2004). Putin Russia choice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Schake, K. (2017, December 19). How to grade Trump’s national security strategy on a curve: Strategizing for this president isn’t easy. But that excuse only gets you so far. Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/19/how-to-grade-trumps-national-security-strategy-on-a-curve/. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  56. Schweller, R. L. (1994). Bandwagoning for profit: Bringing the revisionist state back in. International Security, 19(1), 72–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe: A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy (June 2016). Brussels: The European Union.Google Scholar
  58. Słomczyńska, I. (2008). Koncepcja bezpieczeństwa Francji. In R. Zięba (Ed.), Bezpieczeństwo międzynarodowe po zimnej wojnie (pp. 105–121). Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.Google Scholar
  59. Solana, J. (2016). Odważna strategia dla Europy, wp.pl, 01.08.2016. http://opinie.wp.pl/javier-solana-odwazna-strategia-dla-europy-6021385222407297a. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  60. Strategiya kollektivnoy bezopasnosti Organizatsii Dogovora o kollektivnoy bezopasnosti na period do 2025 goda, 14 oktyabrya 2016 goda [The collective security strategy of the collective security treaty organization for the period up to 2025, October 14, 2016]. http://odkb-csto.org/documents/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=8382. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  61. Strategiya natsional’noy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii, Utverzhdena Ukazom Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 31 dekabrya 2015g., No. 883 [The national security strategy of the Russian Federation, Approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 31, 2015, No. 883]. https://rg.ru/2015/12/31/nac-bezopasnost-site-dok.html. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  62. Strategiya natsional’noy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii do 2020 goda, Utverzhdena Ukazom Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 12 maya 2009g. No. 537 [The national security strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020, Approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 12, 2009 No. 537]. https://rg.ru/2009/05/19/strategia-dok.html. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  63. Tang, S. (2009). The security dilemma: A conceptual analysis. Security Studies, 18(3), 587–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. The defence concept of the Republic of Poland (2017). Warsaw: Ministry of Defence.Google Scholar
  65. The national security strategy of the United Kingdom: Security in the independent world. Presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister, by command of Her Majesty, London, March 2008.Google Scholar
  66. The national security strategy of the United States of America (March 2006). Washington, DC: The White House.Google Scholar
  67. The national security strategy of the United States of America (September 2002). Washington, DC: The White House.Google Scholar
  68. Tocci, N. (2015). Towards an EU global strategy. In A. Missiroli (Ed.), Towards an EU global strategy—background, process, references (pp. 115–120). Paris: Institut d’Etudes de Securité de l’Union Européenne.Google Scholar
  69. Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 31 dekabrya 2015 goda N 683 “O Strategii natsional’noy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii” [Decree of the president of the Russian federation of December 31, 2015 N 683 “On the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation”]. https://rg.ru/2015/12/31/nac-bezopasnost-site-dok.html. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  70. Védrine, H. (2012, November 14). Rapport pour le président de la République sur les conséquences du retour de la France dans le commandement intégré de l’OTAN, sur l’avenir de la relation transatlantique et les perspectives de l’Europe de la défense. Paris: Présidence de la République.Google Scholar
  71. Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (1987). International relations theory: Realism, pluralism, globalism, and beyond. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  72. Voyennaya doktrina Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 30 dekabrya 2014g. [Military doctrine of the Russian Federation, December 30, 2014], Rossiyskaya Gazeta—Federal Edition No. 6570 (298), 08. https://rg.ru/2014/12/30/doktrina-dok.html. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  73. Voyennaya doktrina Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 5 fevralya 2010 goda [The military doctrine of the Russian Federation, February 5, 2010]. http://kremlin.ru/supplement/461. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  74. Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Walt, S. M. (2018). US grand strategy after the cold war: Can realism explain it? Should realism guide it? International Relations, 32(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Waltz, K. (2000). Structural realism after the cold war. International Security, 25(2), 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Waśko-Owsiejczuk, E. (2017). Is America safer today? The first changes to U.S. foreign and security policy during the presidency of Donald Trump. Przegląd Politologiczny, 3, 161–178.Google Scholar
  78. White book on national security of the Republic of Poland (2013). Warsaw: National Security Bureau.Google Scholar
  79. White Paper 2016 on German security policy and the future of the Bundeswehr (2016). Berlin: The Federal Government.Google Scholar
  80. Zając, J. (2008). Koncepcja bezpieczeństwa USA. In R. Zięba (Ed.), Bezpieczeństwo międzynarodowe po zimnej wojnie (pp. 43–61). Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.Google Scholar
  81. Zając, J. (2010). Doktryna uderzenia wyprzedzającego w polityce bezpieczeństwa USA. In J. Symonides (Ed.), Świat wobec współczesnych wyzwań i zagrożeń (pp. 362–374). Warsaw: Scholar.Google Scholar
  82. Zając, J. (2016). Poland’s security policy: The West, Russia and the changing international order. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zięba, A. (2008). Koncepcja bezpieczeństwa Niemiec. In R. Zięba (Ed.), Bezpieczeństwo międzynarodowe po zimnej wojnie (pp. 122–146). Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.Google Scholar
  84. Zięba, R. (2000). 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
  85. Zięba, R. (2004a). Cele polityki zagranicznej państwa. In R. Zięba (Ed.), Wstęp do teorii polityki zagranicznej państwa (pp. 37–58). Toruń: Adam Marszałek.Google Scholar
  86. Zięba, R. (2004b). Instytucjonalizacja bezpieczeństwa europejskiego; koncepcje – struktury – funkcjonowanie. Warsaw: Scholar.Google Scholar
  87. Zięba, R. (2015). Poland and France: A cross analysis of security threats and national interests. In M. de Langlois (Ed.), Vers une nouvelle stratégie européenne de sécurité (Vol. 25, pp. 46–54). Paris: Laboratoires de l’IRSEM, Institut de recherche stratégique de l’École Militaire.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